Uploaded byhardyrcs
PDF, PPTX221 views

9 20-12meetingrevised

This document discusses North Carolina's educator effectiveness update for a statewide meeting of local planning teams. It focuses on setting the context for improving student learning through enabling great teaching. It discusses key elements of the educator effectiveness policies including using a growth model called EVAAS to measure standards 6 and 8, determining educator effectiveness status, and developing measures of student learning for non-tested grades and subjects. The goal is to create a system that identifies the strongest teachers so they can teach others and supports teachers who need additional help.

Embed presentation

Download as PDF, PPTX
NORTH CAROLINA Educator Effectiveness Update Statewide Meeting for Local Planning Teams September 2012
Setting the Context 10/2/2012 • page 2
Getting Students READY The central focus of READY is by enabling and ensuring improving student learning ... great teaching. 10/2/2012 • page 3
PROJECT MAP Strong Leaders A Fair Evaluation System Tools and Training to Improve Practice New Standard Improved Supply of Teachers Course of Study  Support in Low-Achieving Balanced Assessment System LEAs and Schools  New Accountability Model 10/2/2012 • page 4
What is our goal? Before Teaching and Leading Develop effective teachers and leaders in preparation Great programs Student Teachers Readiness and Leaders Achievement An effective and growth for teacher in every all students classroom and leader in every During Teaching school and Leading Use meaningful evaluation and professional development to increase effectiveness of teachers and leaders 10/2/2012 • page 5
Why educator effectiveness? NC is implementing a new curriculum, new assessments, new technology tools to improve instruction, new ways of engaging students, and the list goes on… So why is the State focusing on educator effectiveness in the face of so many other changes? Because all our efforts in other areas depend on an effective teacher in every classroom and an effective leader in every school building.
Why educator effectiveness? The work around educator effectiveness, including the Measures of Student Learning, is grounded in the belief that: Every student in North Carolina deserves an effective teacher in all courses and grades. Our students need to learn all of the standards in the North Carolina Standard Course of Study in order to be READY for their futures.
Why educator effectiveness? In order to increase their effectiveness, teachers need access to high-quality data. Every teacher in North Carolina deserves feedback on the growth of their students. It’s not about firing our way to a better teaching force. It’s about creating a system that: • Identifies the strongest teachers so that we can all learn from them, and • Identifies those teachers who need additional support and targets that support to their needs
Educator Effectiveness Policies
How do we get there? Big Question: What is the best approach to Educator Evaluation and how do we get NC there? 10/2/2012 • page 10
Re-creation of chart from Gathering Feedback For Teaching, http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Practioner_Brief.pdf Observation + Other Measures Months of Learning Gained or Lost State Math State ELA Observation Tool Top 25% +1.2 +.2 Bottom 25% -1.4 -.4 Observation Tool Top 25% +2.8 +.7 + Student Survey Bottom 25% -2 -.9 Observation Tool Top 25% +4.5 +1.2 + Student Survey + Growth (Value-Add) Bottom 25% -3.1 -1.3
What We Have Some Assessments Evaluation Tools From the MET… to Measure Growth End of Grade End of Course Observation  VoCATs Tools Standards 1-7 Standard 8 Assessments to  Measure End of Grade Growth End of Course VoCATs  Student Survey Standards 1-5 Standard 6 Exploring Piloted in 47 LEAs in 2011-12
Observation + Other Measures What do we need? • Standard 6 and 8 We need a state-adopted growth model and a fair 6 & 8 rating strategy • Status We need an overall method to determine educator effectiveness status • Measures of Student Learning (MSLs) For those grades and subjects that are currently non- tested, we need ways to measure growth 10/2/2012 • page 13
Standards 6 & 8 – The Basics Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 Demonstrate Establish Leadership Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Contribute Practice to Academic Success Principals (and other Administrators) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strategic Leadership Instructional Leadership Cultural Leadership Human Resource Leadership Managerial Leadership External Development Leadership Micro- political Leadership Academic Achievement Leadership 10/2/2012 • page 14
Growth Model Teachers Standard 6 and 8 6 Contribute to Academic Success are measures of Principals Growth 8 Academic Academic Achievement Achievement Leadership Leadership 10/2/2012 • page 15
Growth Model Teachers We will use 6 Contribute to Academic Success Educator Value-Added Principals Assessment System EVAAS 8 Academic Academic Achievement Achievement Leadership Leadership for standards 6 & 8 when possible 10/2/2012 • page 16
Growth Model Teachers How do Value-Added models work? 6 Contribute to Academic Success •They measure growth by predicting how well a student will do on an assessment. How do they predict how well Principals the student will do? •They look at previous test scores and estimate how well 8 Academic Academic Achievement the student should do at the end of the year. Achievement Leadership Every student must grow based on where they start. Leadership 10/2/2012 • page 17
Ratings Teachers 6 Contribute to Academic Success How will the ratings on Principals Standards 6 & 8 work? 8 Academic Academic Achievement Achievement Leadership Leadership 10/2/2012 • page 18
Principal Rating Categories Principals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strategic Instructional Cultural Leadership Leadership Leadership Human Resource Leadership Managerial Leadership External Development Micro- political Leadership Leadership 8 Academic Achievement Leadership 5 Rating Categories 3 Rating Categories Not Demonstrated Does not Meet Expected Growth Developing Meets Expected Growth Proficient Exceeds Expected Growth Accomplished Distinguished 10/2/2012 • page 19
Teacher Ratings Categories Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice 6 Contribute to Academic Success 5 Rating Categories 3 Rating Categories Not Demonstrated Does not Meet Expected Growth Developing Meets Expected Growth Proficient Exceeds Expected Growth Accomplished Distinguished 10/2/2012 • page 20
Ratings Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice 6 Contribute to Academic Success 5 Rating Categories 3 Ratings Categories Why the difference? Identifying only three rating categories on standard 6 & 8 improves certainty of categorization.
Teacher Ratings in 2011-12 Yearly Rating Teacher EVAAS Growth 70% School-wide EVAAS Growth 30% •Does not Meet Expected Growth 6 •Meets Expected Growth •Exceeds Expected Growth Weighted Average Why is school-wide EVAAS growth included? • To encourage collaboration and collective ownership of overall outcomes. Note: In 2011-12, teachers without individual EVAAS growth will have school-wide growth for Standard 6.
Teacher Ratings in 2011-12 6 Yearly Rating Teacher-level EVAAS reports available at •Does not Meet end of September 11 (estimated) Expected Growth •Meets Expected Growth Teacher sixth standard ratings available at •Exceeds Expected Growth end of September Sixth standard ratings available in two locations: 1.Rating only will be back-populated into the McREL tool and available to see on the 2011 – 2012 summary rating forms 2.Rating and component data available in EVAAS
Teacher Ratings in 2012-13 2012 – 2013 is the first year of data for all teachers and school administrators who have their own data Possible additional 6 element Yearly Rating Teacher School-wide Student •Does not EVAAS EVAAS Expected Growth Surveys Growth Growth (?) •Meets Expected Growth •Exceeds Expected Growth Weighted Average 10/2/2012 • page 24
Principal Ratings Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ • Standards 8 rating will be determined using school-wide EVAAS growth Yearly Rating School-wide EVAAS Growth •Does not Meet Expectations •Meets Expected Growth •Exceeds Expected Growth 8 10/2/2012 • page 25
Ratings Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice Contribute to Academic Success Principals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strategic Instructional Cultural Human Managerial External Micro- Academic Leadership Leadership Leadership Resource Leadership Development political Achievement Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership Key Note on Ratings •Every educator is evaluated every year •Each standard and rating stands on its own (1 out of 6, not 1/6) •Ratings are used to create professional development plans each year •Ratings are used to determine status
Status Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ What is the difference between Ratings and Status? 10/2/2012 • page 27
Status Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ Ratings Status • Teachers • A single overall status that 6 separate ratings to help is determined once a teachers grow each year principal or teacher has three years of growth • Principals data to populate 6 or 8 8 separate ratings to help principals grow each year • Categories for Status 1. In Need of Improvement 2. Effective 3. Highly Effective 10/2/2012 • page 28
Status and Standard 6 & 8 Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ • An educator receives an effectiveness status only once she has 3 years of data on Standard 6 or 8 • A 3-year rolling average of growth data from standard 6 or 8 is used as part of determining overall status 10/2/2012 • page 29
3-Year Rolling Average Rating from Rating from Rating from 2012 - 2013 2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015 1.9 + -2.5 + 1.2 Standard Standard Standard 3 6 6 6 Contribute to Academic Success = .2 1.9 -2.5 1.2 Met Expected Growth Met Did not meet Met 3- year average rating on Expected Expected Expected standard 6 for Growth Growth Growth determining status Note: A similar methodology applies to principals as well. Note: The values above represent values from the MRM model in EVAAS. 10/2/2012 • page 30
Three Years of Data Any three years of data attributable to a teacher or principal will be combined and used: • Any grades • Any subjects • Any schools • Any districts The three years of data do not start until they are specific to that teacher and his or her students 10/2/2012 • page 31
Status Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ So once a educator has a three-year average rating for Standard 6 or 8, how is status determined? 10/2/2012 • page 32
Status Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ • The Three Status Categories are 1. In Need of Improvement 2. Effective 3. Highly Effective 10/2/2012 • page 33
Teacher Status Rationale - MET Research - Standards 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ In Need of Highly Effective Improvement Effective Standards 1-5 Any rating Proficient Accomplished In the year lower than or Higher or Higher on Standards on Standards proficient 1 2 3 4 5 Demonstrate Establish Leadership Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice 1-5 1-5 And/Or And And Standard 6 Does Not Meets or Exceeds Three-year rolling average Meet Exceeds Expected Expected Expected )/ 3 ) Growth 6 2 years ago 6 + 1ago + year 6 This year Growth Growth
Principal Status Rationale - MET Research - Standards 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ In Need of Highly Effective Improvement Effective Standards 1-7 Any rating Proficient Accomplished In the year lower than or Higher or Higher proficient on Standards on Standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strategic Leadership Instructional Leadership Cultural Leadership Human Resource Leadership Managerial Leadership External Development Leadership Micro- political Leadership 1-7 1-7 And/Or And And Standard 8 Does Not Meets or Exceeds Three-year rolling average Meet Exceeds Expected Expected Expected )/ 3 ) Growth 2 years ago 8 8 + 1ago + year 8 This year Growth Growth
What Will Teachers See? Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ • Ratings on Standards 1 – 5 of the Educator Evaluation System (as recorded in online tool) • Standard 6 rating (current year and 2 prior years) • Three-year rolling average of student growth values and accompanying Standard 6 rating (for Status determination) • Overall Effectiveness Status 10/2/2012 • page 36
Detail on the Sixth Standard Rating
Data Quality
Data Quality Reminders Online NC Educator Evaluation System: Only actual teachers and principals should be entered into the online NC Educator Evaluation System All teachers and principals should have a Unique ID entered in the online NC Educator Evaluation System 10/2/2012 • page 42
Data Quality Reminders Exception Children and Their Teachers: An HQ teacher must instruct EC students in the classroom, not only in NCWISE Co-teachers are responsible for the instruction of all students; enter in NCWISE as “teacher 1” and “teacher 2” 10/2/2012 • page 43
Data Quality Reminders NCWISE: For grades 3 – 5, schedule students separately for ELA, Math, Social Studies and Science Assign final marks for students in grades 3 – 12 Use appropriate course codes If possible, record teacher email addresses in NCWISE 10/2/2012 • page 44
Data Quality Reminders Additional guidance coming soon for NCWISE coordinators 10/2/2012 • page 45
Measures of Student Learning/Common Exams
Measures of Student Learning Measures of Student Learning/Common Exams are being designed for non-tested subjects for district use to populated Standard 6 10/2/2012 • page 47
Focusing on the “Why” So why have statewide Measures of Student Learning/Common Exams? 1. North Carolina has a statewide evaluation system to ensure that every teacher receives a fair and consistent evaluation, regardless of his or her employing LEA 2. Teachers in all content areas should receive a Standard Six rating based on the growth of their own students on their content-specific standards 3. Most LEAs do not have the capacity to design their own assessments for all non state-tested grades and subjects 10/2/2012 • page 48
LEA-NCDPI Partnership Prior to submitting a Race to the Top application, LEA superintendents and the NCDPI came to an agreement on how to measure student growth for the grades and subjects not assessed with state exams: Step Description Owner One Design statewide NCDPI (with teacher assessments input) Two Administer new LEAs/Charter Schools assessments Three Determine growth with NCDPI data from new assessments 10/2/2012 • page 49
In a Typical LEA… • Trains all staff on the evaluation Human Resources process, including Standard Six Director • Explains the purpose of the MSLs • Ensures data quality throughout system • Retrieves the MSLs from the Testing secure shell Coordinator • Manages administration • Scans answer sheets through Winscan 10/2/2012 • page 50
Using Student Growth Guide • Provides information on what assessments must be administered, how growth will be calculated with assessment results, and how teacher growth values will be determined • Divided into content/grade-specific sections 10/2/2012 • page 51
Decision Tree for Administration 10/2/2012 • page 52
Implementation Guide • FINAL version for the Fall 2012 – 2013 administration • Balances between LEA flexibility in implementation and the need to collect secure data to send to EVAAS • Will be revised after any Fall 2012 administrations prior to launch of Spring 2013 administration • Outlines decisions that LEAs need to make about implementation of the MSLs 10/2/2012 • page 53
Implementation Options • Administration of the high school MSLs in the fall is optional • If a district chooses to administer, all MSLs must be administered • If a district chooses to administer, results will be used to determine the sixth standard rating. 10/2/2012 • page 54
Implementation Guide Part I - Context • Provides a summary of the educator evaluation system • Outlines the purpose of the MSLs • Inclusion in the guide does not imply that testing coordinators are responsible for training on the evaluation system or Standard 6 • Acknowledges that teachers are also an audience for the guide and need to understand how the MSLs connect with educator effectiveness • Separate guide on how assessment data are used to measure growth is available 10/2/2012 • page 55
Implementation Guide Part II - Timelines • Timeline of administration for the MSLs • Fall 2012 – 2013 administration is OPTIONAL • Superintendents must notify Dr. Garland by October 1 if district will be administering this fall • Testing window • Up to LEA discretion • Data from Fall 2012 administration due February 1, 2013 • Data from Spring 2013 administration due June 28, 2013 • No retesting (unless misadministration declared) • Administration should not extend testing window • MSLs designed to be administered during normal class period or during exam week 10/2/2012 • page 56
Implementation Guide Part II – Length and Population • Length of the High School 2012 MSLs • 90 minutes • MSLs broken into two 45-minute sections to allow for administration in non-block schedules • Testing population • All 4 – 12 students (with or without classroom accommodations) • LEP students who meet eligibility criteria • Not required for students being instructed on the Extended Content Standards • No alternative assessments for EXTEND 2 population; districts not required to create their own assessments 10/2/2012 • page 57
Implementation Guide Part II – Online Administration • Online administration • LEAs may administer through existing online assessment programs as long as: • The items are uploaded through a method that preserves the integrity of any images • The program can export data in the required form (required file format will be released soon) • Plans are in place for security of the MSLs • The NCDPI cannot support online administration Note: The same form of the MSL will be used in Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. That form will then be released, and a new form will be available for use in 2013 – 2014 10/2/2012 • page 58
Implementation Guide Part II – Paper Administration • Paper and pencil administration • NCDPI will provide PDF files of all MSLs (~November 8) • One PDF for regular administration • One PDF that includes the common large-print and one item per page modifications • LEAs are responsible for printing • Elimination of school-level expenses for printing and Scantron sheets for teacher-designed final exams • Answer sheets available for purchase from vendor with whom the NCDPI will establish a sole-source relationship • NCDPI will approve Race to the Top Detailed Scope of Work amendments that move funds to pay for administration of the MSLs 10/2/2012 • page 59
Implementation Guide Part II – Materials Needed • Materials for administration • MSL Implementation Guide (electronic or paper version) • MSL Test Books • MSL Answer Sheets • Blank paper • Number 2 pencils • Calculators for some science and math MSLs (students may use their own as long as they are cleared by a teacher prior to testing) • Timing device 10/2/2012 • page 60
Implementation Guide Part II – Handling of Materials • Ensure that access to the MSLs is limited by storing in locked location • Take steps to prohibit reproduction of any part of the MSLs • Distribute only immediately before administration • Testing Code of Ethics applies • Collect all materials and destroy any test books that students have written in • Store clean test books and unused answer sheets from Fall 2012 to use in Spring 2013 (if administered during fall semester) 10/2/2012 • page 61
Implementation Guide Part II – Secure Environment • The NCDPI strongly recommends one of the following policies regarding test administrators and proctors: • If the test administrator is the teacher of record for the grade or course, a proctor should be present during the MSL administration • Another teacher (not the teacher of record) serve as the test administrator • Other methods as determined by LEAs; principals ultimately responsible for security • LEAs are not required to use one of the above policies, but should consider security in an environment where student test results play a role in the teacher’s evaluation 10/2/2012 • page 62
Implementation Guide Part II – Irregularities • LEAs should determine what constitutes an irregularity or misadministration • MSL testing irregularities should be investigated and handled at the local level; do not enter into OTISS • When a misadministration is declared, the MSL should be administered again after no fewer than five days from the original administration date 10/2/2012 • page 63
Implementation Guide Part II – Teacher Scoring • Many of the MSLs include one or more performance-based tasks • The NCDPI strongly recommends one of the following policies regarding scoring of these items: • Two teachers with the appropriate content knowledge review and grade the performance-based items (one may be the teacher of record • One teacher with the appropriate content knowledge reviews and grades the performance-based items (should not be the teacher of record) • Partnerships between neighboring LEAs may be valuable 10/2/2012 • page 64
Implementation Guide Part II – Scoring • The teacher(s) who scored the MSL performance items bubble(s) in the number of points awarded on the student answer sheet • Testing staff scores answer sheets in Winscan, which allows for simultaneous capture of points awarded for performance items, scoring of multiple-choice items, and generation of a raw score (percent correct) • Raw score (percent correct) can be used in student grade as a final exam 10/2/2012 • page 65
10/2/2012 • page 66
10/2/2012 • page 67
Implementation Guide Part III • Each LEA should develop an implementation plan for the MSLs • Plans should include: • Training for teachers and school administrators on the MSLs (in conjunction with Human Resources staff) • How/if MSLs will be used for student accountability (i.e. as final exam grades) • How/if parents and guardians will be notified of the MSLs • Testing window 10/2/2012 • page 68
Implementation Guide Part III • Training for teachers on how to score the performance- based items (NCDPI module released in early Fall 2012) • Administration mode and security • Uniform procedures for administration • Procedures for the distribution, collection, storage, destruction, or recycling of MSL materials • Roles and responsibilities for LEA and school-level staff members 10/2/2012 • page 69
Implementation Guide Part IV • Sample scripts to use for paper and pencil administration 10/2/2012 • page 70
Local Planning Template
Local Planning Templates The NCDPI has designed an optional planning template to assist districts and charter schools with the development of educator effectiveness plans Completion of template is optional: the NCDPI will not request or review 10/2/2012 • page 72
Contact Information Rebecca Garland Chief Academic Officer Rebecca.Garland@dpi.nc.gov Angela Quick Deputy Chief Academic Officer Angela.Quick@dpi.nc.gov Jennifer Preston Race to the Top Project Coordinator for Educator Effectiveness Jennifer.Preston@dpi.nc.gov educatoreffectiveness@dpi.nc.gov http://www.ncpublicschools.org/educatoreffect/ 10/2/2012 • page 73
ASIS Update 10/2/2012 • page 74
Local Planning Time 10/2/2012 • page 75

More Related Content

PPT
Standard 6 & 8
byhardyrcs
 
PPTX
Professional action learning plan and portfolio
byNigel Ross
 
PPT
Action learning briefing (1)
byNagarjuna Jampala
 
PPT
9 20-12meetingrevised
byhardyrcs
 
PPT
2nd Annual RtI Forum
byrachelmcbroom
 
PPT
2008 nces summer data conference making the case for longitudinal data of t...
byChristopher Thorn
 
DOC
Lt meeting 2
bygnonewleaders
 
DOC
Lt meeting 3
bygnonewleaders
 
Standard 6 & 8
byhardyrcs
 
Professional action learning plan and portfolio
byNigel Ross
 
Action learning briefing (1)
byNagarjuna Jampala
 
9 20-12meetingrevised
byhardyrcs
 
2nd Annual RtI Forum
byrachelmcbroom
 
2008 nces summer data conference making the case for longitudinal data of t...
byChristopher Thorn
 
Lt meeting 2
bygnonewleaders
 
Lt meeting 3
bygnonewleaders
 

What's hot

PPT
Teach nj fd
byMichael Parent, Ed.D
 
PPTX
UNPACKING THE COMMON CORE FOR CHESTNUT MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS
byTeachernay
 
PDF
DepEd National Competency-Based Standards for School Heads
byNational Educators Academy of the Philippines
 
PPTX
Capstone Project Presentation
byjgilroy
 
PPTX
Principal plc presentation
byThomas Feller, Jr.
 
PPTX
SDP Educational Model
byMeryas Technologies
 
PDF
NTLTC 2011 - NMIT Teaching & Learning Observation (TALO) Tutor Guide 2010
byNTLT Conference
 
PPTX
Co-designing a global pd program for 120 Navitas colleges
byLearningandTeaching
 
PDF
CPS Office of Principal Preparation and Development - History and Overview
byLinda A Shay
 
PPTX
Re-Design for the PID Program
byKaren
 
PPTX
Leading Complex District Transformation Efforts - SREE Conference 9/3/2014
byPartners in School Innovation
 
PPTX
2012 IHE Institutes Leaders with Leaders Session
byrachelmcbroom
 
PPTX
DLT planning retreat 6-18-12
byISD191
 
PPT
Module5 Webinar5 Monmouth 10 28
byAcademy of Allied Health & Science
 
PPT
Overview rti
bydowelld
 
PPTX
Principal plc presentation 6-8 & k-8 version
byThomas Feller, Jr.
 
PPTX
Region 14 Planning Opening Presentation
byEdAdvance
 
PPTX
Tlt board report 12 1-11
byISD191
 
PDF
Accelerate IT
bySherryDugan
 
PPTX
Managing Performance Through Accountability Conversations
byHRTMS
 
Teach nj fd
byMichael Parent, Ed.D
 
UNPACKING THE COMMON CORE FOR CHESTNUT MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS
byTeachernay
 
DepEd National Competency-Based Standards for School Heads
byNational Educators Academy of the Philippines
 
Capstone Project Presentation
byjgilroy
 
Principal plc presentation
byThomas Feller, Jr.
 
SDP Educational Model
byMeryas Technologies
 
NTLTC 2011 - NMIT Teaching & Learning Observation (TALO) Tutor Guide 2010
byNTLT Conference
 
Co-designing a global pd program for 120 Navitas colleges
byLearningandTeaching
 
CPS Office of Principal Preparation and Development - History and Overview
byLinda A Shay
 
Re-Design for the PID Program
byKaren
 
Leading Complex District Transformation Efforts - SREE Conference 9/3/2014
byPartners in School Innovation
 
2012 IHE Institutes Leaders with Leaders Session
byrachelmcbroom
 
DLT planning retreat 6-18-12
byISD191
 
Module5 Webinar5 Monmouth 10 28
byAcademy of Allied Health & Science
 
Overview rti
bydowelld
 
Principal plc presentation 6-8 & k-8 version
byThomas Feller, Jr.
 
Region 14 Planning Opening Presentation
byEdAdvance
 
Tlt board report 12 1-11
byISD191
 
Accelerate IT
bySherryDugan
 
Managing Performance Through Accountability Conversations
byHRTMS
 

Viewers also liked

PDF
Ncascd october18 ncpd_ipresentation2
byhardyrcs
 
PDF
Assessment literacy for effective classroom-based assessment
byEddy White, Ph.D.
 
PDF
CCSS Math and SBAC Assessments: Assessing the Common Core, Grades 9-12
byPatty Stephens
 
PPTX
Chapter 2- Authentic assessment
byJarry Fuentes
 
PPT
SBAC parent info
byCorona Norco Unified School District
 
PPTX
Authentic Assessment
bySuha Tamim
 
PPTX
Cst test prep night 1
byglenoaksweb
 
PPT
Cst test taking strategies (math)
byVictor Gonzalez
 
PPTX
CELDT to ELPAC
byCarla Piper
 
PPTX
Preparing for PARCC & Reducing Test Anxiety
byjdando
 
PPT
Test-Taking Strategies
bynmcclure
 
PDF
Preparing for PARCC: Addressing Online Testing Challenges with your Students ...
byWowzersMath
 
PPTX
How do we prepare for the parcc
byJessicaMisunasCornelius
 
PPTX
Planning for parcc
byjdando
 
PPT
STAR Training For Site Coordinators v2
bydvodicka
 
PPT
Cahsee test info
byJessicacharlene
 
PPT
CAHSEE Prep and You
bySouthEastHigh
 
PPT
Tasty Test Prep Tidbits in the Library
bySarah Bosler
 
PPTX
Lifes A Bicycle Presentation to CAPA Feb 2017
bySharon M. Barnes, LCSW PLLC
 
PPTX
Elementsofpoetry part3
bynmcclure
 
Ncascd october18 ncpd_ipresentation2
byhardyrcs
 
Assessment literacy for effective classroom-based assessment
byEddy White, Ph.D.
 
CCSS Math and SBAC Assessments: Assessing the Common Core, Grades 9-12
byPatty Stephens
 
Chapter 2- Authentic assessment
byJarry Fuentes
 
SBAC parent info
byCorona Norco Unified School District
 
Authentic Assessment
bySuha Tamim
 
Cst test prep night 1
byglenoaksweb
 
Cst test taking strategies (math)
byVictor Gonzalez
 
CELDT to ELPAC
byCarla Piper
 
Preparing for PARCC & Reducing Test Anxiety
byjdando
 
Test-Taking Strategies
bynmcclure
 
Preparing for PARCC: Addressing Online Testing Challenges with your Students ...
byWowzersMath
 
How do we prepare for the parcc
byJessicaMisunasCornelius
 
Planning for parcc
byjdando
 
STAR Training For Site Coordinators v2
bydvodicka
 
Cahsee test info
byJessicacharlene
 
CAHSEE Prep and You
bySouthEastHigh
 
Tasty Test Prep Tidbits in the Library
bySarah Bosler
 
Lifes A Bicycle Presentation to CAPA Feb 2017
bySharon M. Barnes, LCSW PLLC
 
Elementsofpoetry part3
bynmcclure
 

Similar to 9 20-12meetingrevised

PPTX
UNCP CTC Presentation Jan 2013
byrachelmcbroom
 
PDF
Assessing, evaluating and reporting student progress nov 2110
byAndrea Hnatiuk
 
PDF
Assessing, evaluating and reporting student progress nov 2110
byAndrea Hnatiuk
 
PDF
Assessment evaluation tools[1]
bySusan Robertson
 
PPTX
What's New at NWEA: Keeping Learning on Track
byNWEA
 
PPTX
Confronting the Challenges of Teacher Evaluation, a Webinar with Dr. Harvey S...
bySchool Improvement Network
 
PDF
The Thoughtful Approach to Classroom Observations Webinar Presentation
bySchool Improvement Network
 
PPTX
Tools for evaluating the effectiveness of your teaching technique 1
byUniversity of Central Florida
 
PDF
Print form 184
byAngie Long
 
PDF
Data Wise Process
bysmcgill2
 
PPT
Teacher effect[1]
byrwllok
 
PPTX
Principals meeting msl standard 6 update
bydowelld
 
PPTX
IHE Institute Leaders with Leaders updated Dec 2012
byrachelmcbroom
 
PPT
Lacuesite 2013 accountability
byCcharles29
 
PPT
3 leadership roles
byDen Besut
 
PPT
The Regents Reform Agenda & Improvement of Teaching Practices
byCASDANY
 
PPTX
Kentucky Prichard Committee Presentation on EET
byryankinser
 
PDF
2012 11 13 Classroom Management with CAF - Another Step
byHugo Caldeira
 
PDF
First tothetop policyupdate
byTennessee School Boards Association
 
PDF
UP ACE MTL Unit 1 Session 3
byEducation Moving Up Cc.
 
UNCP CTC Presentation Jan 2013
byrachelmcbroom
 
Assessing, evaluating and reporting student progress nov 2110
byAndrea Hnatiuk
 
Assessing, evaluating and reporting student progress nov 2110
byAndrea Hnatiuk
 
Assessment evaluation tools[1]
bySusan Robertson
 
What's New at NWEA: Keeping Learning on Track
byNWEA
 
Confronting the Challenges of Teacher Evaluation, a Webinar with Dr. Harvey S...
bySchool Improvement Network
 
The Thoughtful Approach to Classroom Observations Webinar Presentation
bySchool Improvement Network
 
Tools for evaluating the effectiveness of your teaching technique 1
byUniversity of Central Florida
 
Print form 184
byAngie Long
 
Data Wise Process
bysmcgill2
 
Teacher effect[1]
byrwllok
 
Principals meeting msl standard 6 update
bydowelld
 
IHE Institute Leaders with Leaders updated Dec 2012
byrachelmcbroom
 
Lacuesite 2013 accountability
byCcharles29
 
3 leadership roles
byDen Besut
 
The Regents Reform Agenda & Improvement of Teaching Practices
byCASDANY
 
Kentucky Prichard Committee Presentation on EET
byryankinser
 
2012 11 13 Classroom Management with CAF - Another Step
byHugo Caldeira
 
First tothetop policyupdate
byTennessee School Boards Association
 
UP ACE MTL Unit 1 Session 3
byEducation Moving Up Cc.
 

9 20-12meetingrevised

  • 1.
    NORTH CAROLINA Educator Effectiveness Update Statewide Meeting for Local Planning Teams September 2012
  • 2.
    Setting the Context 10/2/2012 • page 2
  • 3.
    Getting Students READY The central focus of READY is by enabling and ensuring improving student learning ... great teaching. 10/2/2012 • page 3
  • 4.
    PROJECT MAP Strong Leaders A Fair Evaluation System Tools and Training to Improve Practice New Standard Improved Supply of Teachers Course of Study  Support in Low-Achieving Balanced Assessment System LEAs and Schools  New Accountability Model 10/2/2012 • page 4
  • 5.
    What is ourgoal? Before Teaching and Leading Develop effective teachers and leaders in preparation Great programs Student Teachers Readiness and Leaders Achievement An effective and growth for teacher in every all students classroom and leader in every During Teaching school and Leading Use meaningful evaluation and professional development to increase effectiveness of teachers and leaders 10/2/2012 • page 5
  • 6.
    Why educator effectiveness? NCis implementing a new curriculum, new assessments, new technology tools to improve instruction, new ways of engaging students, and the list goes on… So why is the State focusing on educator effectiveness in the face of so many other changes? Because all our efforts in other areas depend on an effective teacher in every classroom and an effective leader in every school building.
  • 7.
    Why educator effectiveness? Thework around educator effectiveness, including the Measures of Student Learning, is grounded in the belief that: Every student in North Carolina deserves an effective teacher in all courses and grades. Our students need to learn all of the standards in the North Carolina Standard Course of Study in order to be READY for their futures.
  • 8.
    Why educator effectiveness? Inorder to increase their effectiveness, teachers need access to high-quality data. Every teacher in North Carolina deserves feedback on the growth of their students. It’s not about firing our way to a better teaching force. It’s about creating a system that: • Identifies the strongest teachers so that we can all learn from them, and • Identifies those teachers who need additional support and targets that support to their needs
  • 9.
  • 10.
    How do weget there? Big Question: What is the best approach to Educator Evaluation and how do we get NC there? 10/2/2012 • page 10
  • 11.
    Re-creation of chartfrom Gathering Feedback For Teaching, http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Practioner_Brief.pdf Observation + Other Measures Months of Learning Gained or Lost State Math State ELA Observation Tool Top 25% +1.2 +.2 Bottom 25% -1.4 -.4 Observation Tool Top 25% +2.8 +.7 + Student Survey Bottom 25% -2 -.9 Observation Tool Top 25% +4.5 +1.2 + Student Survey + Growth (Value-Add) Bottom 25% -3.1 -1.3
  • 12.
    What We Have Some Assessments Evaluation Tools From the MET… to Measure Growth End of Grade End of Course Observation  VoCATs Tools Standards 1-7 Standard 8 Assessments to  Measure End of Grade Growth End of Course VoCATs  Student Survey Standards 1-5 Standard 6 Exploring Piloted in 47 LEAs in 2011-12
  • 13.
    Observation + OtherMeasures What do we need? • Standard 6 and 8 We need a state-adopted growth model and a fair 6 & 8 rating strategy • Status We need an overall method to determine educator effectiveness status • Measures of Student Learning (MSLs) For those grades and subjects that are currently non- tested, we need ways to measure growth 10/2/2012 • page 13
  • 14.
    Standards 6 &8 – The Basics Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 Demonstrate Establish Leadership Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Contribute Practice to Academic Success Principals (and other Administrators) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strategic Leadership Instructional Leadership Cultural Leadership Human Resource Leadership Managerial Leadership External Development Leadership Micro- political Leadership Academic Achievement Leadership 10/2/2012 • page 14
  • 15.
    Growth Model Teachers Standard 6 and 8 6 Contribute to Academic Success are measures of Principals Growth 8 Academic Academic Achievement Achievement Leadership Leadership 10/2/2012 • page 15
  • 16.
    Growth Model Teachers We will use 6 Contribute to Academic Success Educator Value-Added Principals Assessment System EVAAS 8 Academic Academic Achievement Achievement Leadership Leadership for standards 6 & 8 when possible 10/2/2012 • page 16
  • 17.
    Growth Model Teachers How do Value-Added models work? 6 Contribute to Academic Success •They measure growth by predicting how well a student will do on an assessment. How do they predict how well Principals the student will do? •They look at previous test scores and estimate how well 8 Academic Academic Achievement the student should do at the end of the year. Achievement Leadership Every student must grow based on where they start. Leadership 10/2/2012 • page 17
  • 18.
    Ratings Teachers 6 Contribute to Academic Success How will the ratings on Principals Standards 6 & 8 work? 8 Academic Academic Achievement Achievement Leadership Leadership 10/2/2012 • page 18
  • 19.
    Principal Rating Categories Principals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strategic Instructional Cultural Leadership Leadership Leadership Human Resource Leadership Managerial Leadership External Development Micro- political Leadership Leadership 8 Academic Achievement Leadership 5 Rating Categories 3 Rating Categories Not Demonstrated Does not Meet Expected Growth Developing Meets Expected Growth Proficient Exceeds Expected Growth Accomplished Distinguished 10/2/2012 • page 19
  • 20.
    Teacher Ratings Categories Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice 6 Contribute to Academic Success 5 Rating Categories 3 Rating Categories Not Demonstrated Does not Meet Expected Growth Developing Meets Expected Growth Proficient Exceeds Expected Growth Accomplished Distinguished 10/2/2012 • page 20
  • 21.
    Ratings Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice 6 Contribute to Academic Success 5 Rating Categories 3 Ratings Categories Why the difference? Identifying only three rating categories on standard 6 & 8 improves certainty of categorization.
  • 22.
    Teacher Ratings in2011-12 Yearly Rating Teacher EVAAS Growth 70% School-wide EVAAS Growth 30% •Does not Meet Expected Growth 6 •Meets Expected Growth •Exceeds Expected Growth Weighted Average Why is school-wide EVAAS growth included? • To encourage collaboration and collective ownership of overall outcomes. Note: In 2011-12, teachers without individual EVAAS growth will have school-wide growth for Standard 6.
  • 23.
    Teacher Ratings in2011-12 6 Yearly Rating Teacher-level EVAAS reports available at •Does not Meet end of September 11 (estimated) Expected Growth •Meets Expected Growth Teacher sixth standard ratings available at •Exceeds Expected Growth end of September Sixth standard ratings available in two locations: 1.Rating only will be back-populated into the McREL tool and available to see on the 2011 – 2012 summary rating forms 2.Rating and component data available in EVAAS
  • 24.
    Teacher Ratings in2012-13 2012 – 2013 is the first year of data for all teachers and school administrators who have their own data Possible additional 6 element Yearly Rating Teacher School-wide Student •Does not EVAAS EVAAS Expected Growth Surveys Growth Growth (?) •Meets Expected Growth •Exceeds Expected Growth Weighted Average 10/2/2012 • page 24
  • 25.
    Principal Ratings Rationale -MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ • Standards 8 rating will be determined using school-wide EVAAS growth Yearly Rating School-wide EVAAS Growth •Does not Meet Expectations •Meets Expected Growth •Exceeds Expected Growth 8 10/2/2012 • page 25
  • 26.
    Ratings Rationale - METResearch - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 Demonstrate Leadership Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice Contribute to Academic Success Principals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strategic Instructional Cultural Human Managerial External Micro- Academic Leadership Leadership Leadership Resource Leadership Development political Achievement Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership Key Note on Ratings •Every educator is evaluated every year •Each standard and rating stands on its own (1 out of 6, not 1/6) •Ratings are used to create professional development plans each year •Ratings are used to determine status
  • 27.
    Status Rationale - METResearch - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ What is the difference between Ratings and Status? 10/2/2012 • page 27
  • 28.
    Status Rationale - METResearch - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ Ratings Status • Teachers • A single overall status that 6 separate ratings to help is determined once a teachers grow each year principal or teacher has three years of growth • Principals data to populate 6 or 8 8 separate ratings to help principals grow each year • Categories for Status 1. In Need of Improvement 2. Effective 3. Highly Effective 10/2/2012 • page 28
  • 29.
    Status and Standard6 & 8 Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ • An educator receives an effectiveness status only once she has 3 years of data on Standard 6 or 8 • A 3-year rolling average of growth data from standard 6 or 8 is used as part of determining overall status 10/2/2012 • page 29
  • 30.
    3-Year Rolling Average Ratingfrom Rating from Rating from 2012 - 2013 2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015 1.9 + -2.5 + 1.2 Standard Standard Standard 3 6 6 6 Contribute to Academic Success = .2 1.9 -2.5 1.2 Met Expected Growth Met Did not meet Met 3- year average rating on Expected Expected Expected standard 6 for Growth Growth Growth determining status Note: A similar methodology applies to principals as well. Note: The values above represent values from the MRM model in EVAAS. 10/2/2012 • page 30
  • 31.
    Three Years ofData Any three years of data attributable to a teacher or principal will be combined and used: • Any grades • Any subjects • Any schools • Any districts The three years of data do not start until they are specific to that teacher and his or her students 10/2/2012 • page 31
  • 32.
    Status Rationale - METResearch - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ So once a educator has a three-year average rating for Standard 6 or 8, how is status determined? 10/2/2012 • page 32
  • 33.
    Status Rationale - METResearch - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ • The Three Status Categories are 1. In Need of Improvement 2. Effective 3. Highly Effective 10/2/2012 • page 33
  • 34.
    Teacher Status Rationale - MET Research - Standards 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ In Need of Highly Effective Improvement Effective Standards 1-5 Any rating Proficient Accomplished In the year lower than or Higher or Higher on Standards on Standards proficient 1 2 3 4 5 Demonstrate Establish Leadership Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Reflect on Practice 1-5 1-5 And/Or And And Standard 6 Does Not Meets or Exceeds Three-year rolling average Meet Exceeds Expected Expected Expected )/ 3 ) Growth 6 2 years ago 6 + 1ago + year 6 This year Growth Growth
  • 35.
    Principal Status Rationale - MET Research - Standards 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ In Need of Highly Effective Improvement Effective Standards 1-7 Any rating Proficient Accomplished In the year lower than or Higher or Higher proficient on Standards on Standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strategic Leadership Instructional Leadership Cultural Leadership Human Resource Leadership Managerial Leadership External Development Leadership Micro- political Leadership 1-7 1-7 And/Or And And Standard 8 Does Not Meets or Exceeds Three-year rolling average Meet Exceeds Expected Expected Expected )/ 3 ) Growth 2 years ago 8 8 + 1ago + year 8 This year Growth Growth
  • 36.
    What Will TeachersSee? Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support ▲ • Ratings on Standards 1 – 5 of the Educator Evaluation System (as recorded in online tool) • Standard 6 rating (current year and 2 prior years) • Three-year rolling average of student growth values and accompanying Standard 6 rating (for Status determination) • Overall Effectiveness Status 10/2/2012 • page 36
  • 40.
  • 41.
  • 42.
    Data Quality Reminders OnlineNC Educator Evaluation System: Only actual teachers and principals should be entered into the online NC Educator Evaluation System All teachers and principals should have a Unique ID entered in the online NC Educator Evaluation System 10/2/2012 • page 42
  • 43.
    Data Quality Reminders ExceptionChildren and Their Teachers: An HQ teacher must instruct EC students in the classroom, not only in NCWISE Co-teachers are responsible for the instruction of all students; enter in NCWISE as “teacher 1” and “teacher 2” 10/2/2012 • page 43
  • 44.
    Data Quality Reminders NCWISE: Forgrades 3 – 5, schedule students separately for ELA, Math, Social Studies and Science Assign final marks for students in grades 3 – 12 Use appropriate course codes If possible, record teacher email addresses in NCWISE 10/2/2012 • page 44
  • 45.
    Data Quality Reminders Additionalguidance coming soon for NCWISE coordinators 10/2/2012 • page 45
  • 46.
  • 47.
    Measures of StudentLearning Measures of Student Learning/Common Exams are being designed for non-tested subjects for district use to populated Standard 6 10/2/2012 • page 47
  • 48.
    Focusing on the“Why” So why have statewide Measures of Student Learning/Common Exams? 1. North Carolina has a statewide evaluation system to ensure that every teacher receives a fair and consistent evaluation, regardless of his or her employing LEA 2. Teachers in all content areas should receive a Standard Six rating based on the growth of their own students on their content-specific standards 3. Most LEAs do not have the capacity to design their own assessments for all non state-tested grades and subjects 10/2/2012 • page 48
  • 49.
    LEA-NCDPI Partnership Prior tosubmitting a Race to the Top application, LEA superintendents and the NCDPI came to an agreement on how to measure student growth for the grades and subjects not assessed with state exams: Step Description Owner One Design statewide NCDPI (with teacher assessments input) Two Administer new LEAs/Charter Schools assessments Three Determine growth with NCDPI data from new assessments 10/2/2012 • page 49
  • 50.
    In a TypicalLEA… • Trains all staff on the evaluation Human Resources process, including Standard Six Director • Explains the purpose of the MSLs • Ensures data quality throughout system • Retrieves the MSLs from the Testing secure shell Coordinator • Manages administration • Scans answer sheets through Winscan 10/2/2012 • page 50
  • 51.
    Using Student GrowthGuide • Provides information on what assessments must be administered, how growth will be calculated with assessment results, and how teacher growth values will be determined • Divided into content/grade-specific sections 10/2/2012 • page 51
  • 52.
    Decision Tree forAdministration 10/2/2012 • page 52
  • 53.
    Implementation Guide • FINAL version for the Fall 2012 – 2013 administration • Balances between LEA flexibility in implementation and the need to collect secure data to send to EVAAS • Will be revised after any Fall 2012 administrations prior to launch of Spring 2013 administration • Outlines decisions that LEAs need to make about implementation of the MSLs 10/2/2012 • page 53
  • 54.
    Implementation Options • Administration of the high school MSLs in the fall is optional • If a district chooses to administer, all MSLs must be administered • If a district chooses to administer, results will be used to determine the sixth standard rating. 10/2/2012 • page 54
  • 55.
    Implementation Guide Part I- Context • Provides a summary of the educator evaluation system • Outlines the purpose of the MSLs • Inclusion in the guide does not imply that testing coordinators are responsible for training on the evaluation system or Standard 6 • Acknowledges that teachers are also an audience for the guide and need to understand how the MSLs connect with educator effectiveness • Separate guide on how assessment data are used to measure growth is available 10/2/2012 • page 55
  • 56.
    Implementation Guide Part II- Timelines • Timeline of administration for the MSLs • Fall 2012 – 2013 administration is OPTIONAL • Superintendents must notify Dr. Garland by October 1 if district will be administering this fall • Testing window • Up to LEA discretion • Data from Fall 2012 administration due February 1, 2013 • Data from Spring 2013 administration due June 28, 2013 • No retesting (unless misadministration declared) • Administration should not extend testing window • MSLs designed to be administered during normal class period or during exam week 10/2/2012 • page 56
  • 57.
    Implementation Guide Part II– Length and Population • Length of the High School 2012 MSLs • 90 minutes • MSLs broken into two 45-minute sections to allow for administration in non-block schedules • Testing population • All 4 – 12 students (with or without classroom accommodations) • LEP students who meet eligibility criteria • Not required for students being instructed on the Extended Content Standards • No alternative assessments for EXTEND 2 population; districts not required to create their own assessments 10/2/2012 • page 57
  • 58.
    Implementation Guide Part II– Online Administration • Online administration • LEAs may administer through existing online assessment programs as long as: • The items are uploaded through a method that preserves the integrity of any images • The program can export data in the required form (required file format will be released soon) • Plans are in place for security of the MSLs • The NCDPI cannot support online administration Note: The same form of the MSL will be used in Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. That form will then be released, and a new form will be available for use in 2013 – 2014 10/2/2012 • page 58
  • 59.
    Implementation Guide Part II– Paper Administration • Paper and pencil administration • NCDPI will provide PDF files of all MSLs (~November 8) • One PDF for regular administration • One PDF that includes the common large-print and one item per page modifications • LEAs are responsible for printing • Elimination of school-level expenses for printing and Scantron sheets for teacher-designed final exams • Answer sheets available for purchase from vendor with whom the NCDPI will establish a sole-source relationship • NCDPI will approve Race to the Top Detailed Scope of Work amendments that move funds to pay for administration of the MSLs 10/2/2012 • page 59
  • 60.
    Implementation Guide Part II– Materials Needed • Materials for administration • MSL Implementation Guide (electronic or paper version) • MSL Test Books • MSL Answer Sheets • Blank paper • Number 2 pencils • Calculators for some science and math MSLs (students may use their own as long as they are cleared by a teacher prior to testing) • Timing device 10/2/2012 • page 60
  • 61.
    Implementation Guide Part II– Handling of Materials • Ensure that access to the MSLs is limited by storing in locked location • Take steps to prohibit reproduction of any part of the MSLs • Distribute only immediately before administration • Testing Code of Ethics applies • Collect all materials and destroy any test books that students have written in • Store clean test books and unused answer sheets from Fall 2012 to use in Spring 2013 (if administered during fall semester) 10/2/2012 • page 61
  • 62.
    Implementation Guide Part II– Secure Environment • The NCDPI strongly recommends one of the following policies regarding test administrators and proctors: • If the test administrator is the teacher of record for the grade or course, a proctor should be present during the MSL administration • Another teacher (not the teacher of record) serve as the test administrator • Other methods as determined by LEAs; principals ultimately responsible for security • LEAs are not required to use one of the above policies, but should consider security in an environment where student test results play a role in the teacher’s evaluation 10/2/2012 • page 62
  • 63.
    Implementation Guide Part II– Irregularities • LEAs should determine what constitutes an irregularity or misadministration • MSL testing irregularities should be investigated and handled at the local level; do not enter into OTISS • When a misadministration is declared, the MSL should be administered again after no fewer than five days from the original administration date 10/2/2012 • page 63
  • 64.
    Implementation Guide Part II– Teacher Scoring • Many of the MSLs include one or more performance-based tasks • The NCDPI strongly recommends one of the following policies regarding scoring of these items: • Two teachers with the appropriate content knowledge review and grade the performance-based items (one may be the teacher of record • One teacher with the appropriate content knowledge reviews and grades the performance-based items (should not be the teacher of record) • Partnerships between neighboring LEAs may be valuable 10/2/2012 • page 64
  • 65.
    Implementation Guide Part II– Scoring • The teacher(s) who scored the MSL performance items bubble(s) in the number of points awarded on the student answer sheet • Testing staff scores answer sheets in Winscan, which allows for simultaneous capture of points awarded for performance items, scoring of multiple-choice items, and generation of a raw score (percent correct) • Raw score (percent correct) can be used in student grade as a final exam 10/2/2012 • page 65
  • 66.
  • 67.
  • 68.
    Implementation Guide Part III • Each LEA should develop an implementation plan for the MSLs • Plans should include: • Training for teachers and school administrators on the MSLs (in conjunction with Human Resources staff) • How/if MSLs will be used for student accountability (i.e. as final exam grades) • How/if parents and guardians will be notified of the MSLs • Testing window 10/2/2012 • page 68
  • 69.
    Implementation Guide Part III • Training for teachers on how to score the performance- based items (NCDPI module released in early Fall 2012) • Administration mode and security • Uniform procedures for administration • Procedures for the distribution, collection, storage, destruction, or recycling of MSL materials • Roles and responsibilities for LEA and school-level staff members 10/2/2012 • page 69
  • 70.
    Implementation Guide Part IV • Sample scripts to use for paper and pencil administration 10/2/2012 • page 70
  • 71.
  • 72.
    Local Planning Templates TheNCDPI has designed an optional planning template to assist districts and charter schools with the development of educator effectiveness plans Completion of template is optional: the NCDPI will not request or review 10/2/2012 • page 72
  • 73.
    Contact Information Rebecca Garland ChiefAcademic Officer Rebecca.Garland@dpi.nc.gov Angela Quick Deputy Chief Academic Officer Angela.Quick@dpi.nc.gov Jennifer Preston Race to the Top Project Coordinator for Educator Effectiveness Jennifer.Preston@dpi.nc.gov educatoreffectiveness@dpi.nc.gov http://www.ncpublicschools.org/educatoreffect/ 10/2/2012 • page 73
  • 74.
    ASIS Update 10/2/2012 • page 74
  • 75.
    Local Planning Time 10/2/2012 • page 75