#### Transcript Using Growth measures for Educator Evaluation

New York State Education Department Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation August 2012 1 www.engageNY.org By the End of This Presentation…. You should be able to: – Explain how growth ratings (HEDI) and scores will be obtained from educator overall MGPs and confidence ranges based on 2011-12 State-provided growth measures 2 www.engageNY.org Evaluating Educator Effectiveness 2011-12 Growth 20% Locally Selected Measures 20% Other Measures 60% 3 • Student growth on state assessments (stateprovided) • Student learning objectives • Student growth or achievement • Options selected through collective bargaining • Rubrics • Sources of evidence: observations, visits, surveys, etc. www.engageNY.org Key Points about NYS Growth Measures – We are measuring student growth and not achievement Allow teachers to achieve high ratings regardless of incoming levels of achievement of their students – We are measuring growth compared to similar students Similar students: Up to three years of the same prior achievement, three student-level characteristics (economic disadvantage, SWD, and ELL status) Every educator has a fair chance to demonstrate effectiveness on these measures regardless of the composition of his/her class or school. 4 www.engageNY.org Review of Terms SGP (student growth percentile): – the result of a statistical model that calculates each student’s change in achievement between two or more points in time on a State assessment or other comparable measure and compares each student’s performance to that of similarly achieving students Similar students: – students with the similar prior test scores,(up to three years), and ELL, SWD, and economic disadvantage status Unadjusted and adjusted MGP (mean growth percentile): – the average of the student growth percentiles attributed to a given educator – For evaluation purposes, the overall adjusted MGP is used. This is the MGP that includes all a teacher or principal’s students and takes into account student demographics. 5 www.engageNY.org MGPs and Statistical Confidence MGP Lower Limit 87 Upper Limit Confidence Range • NYSED will provide a 95% confidence range, meaning we can be 95% confident that an educator’s “true” MGP lies within that range. Upper and lower limits of MGPs will also be provided. • An educator’s confidence range depends on a number of factors, including the number of student scores included in his or her MGP and the variability of student performance in the classroom. 6 www.engageNY.org Growth Ratings and Score Ranges 2011-12 Growth Rating Description Growth Score Range (2011–12) Highly Effective Well above state average for similar students 18–20 Effective Results meet state average for similar students 9–17 Developing Below state average for similar students 3–8 Ineffective Well below state average for similar students 0–2 The growth scores and ratings are based on an educator’s combined MGP. 7 www.engageNY.org HEDI Classification Approach: Teachers and Principals Highly Effective (Well Above Average) requires: – An educator’s MGP is greater than 1.5 standard deviations above the State mean. – For 2011-12 this means MGP’s greater than or equal to 69 for teachers. Effective (Average) requires: – An educator’s MGP is between 1 standard deviation below the State mean and 1.5 standard deviations above the State mean. – For 2011-12, MGPs of 42 through 68 for teachers. Developing (Below Average) requires: – An educator’s MGP is between 1 and 1.5 standard deviations below the State mean. – For 2011-12, MGPs of 36 through 41 for teachers. Ineffective (Well Below Average) requires: – An educator’s MGP is more than 1.5 standard deviations below the State mean. – For 2011-12 this means MGPs less than or equal to 35 for teachers. 8 www.engageNY.org From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Teachers Rules on last slide result in these HEDI criteria for 2011-12 Mean Growth Percentile Is your MGP ≥ 69? Yes Confidence Range Is your Lower Limit > Mean of 52? HEDI Rating Yes No Is your MGP 42-68? Yes Any Confidence Range Yes Highly Effective: Results are well above state average for similar students Effective: Results equal state average for similar students No Is your MGP 36-41? Yes Is your Upper Limit < Mean of 52? Yes Developing: Results are below state average for similar students Yes Ineffective: Results are well below state average for similar students No Is your MGP ≤ 35? 9 Yes Is your Upper Limit < 44? www.engageNY.org From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Principals For principals the rules lead to these HEDI criteria for 2011-12 Mean Growth Percentile Is your MGP ≥ 61? Yes Confidence Range HEDI Rating Is your Lower Limit > Mean of 51? Highly Effective: Results are well above state average for similar students Yes No Is your MGP 45-60? Yes Any Confidence Range Yes Effective: Results equal state average for similar students No Is your MGP 41.5-44? Yes Is your Upper Limit < Mean of 51? Yes Developing: Results are below state average for similar students Yes Ineffective: Results are well below state average for similar students No Is your MGP ≤ 41? 10 Yes Is your Upper Limit < 46? www.engageNY.org Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings: (Another Way) (2011-12 cut scores) MGP 1 Well Below Average (35) Below Average (41) Well Above Average (69) Average (52) MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP MGP Upper limit CR for Ineffective (44) 11 www.engageNY.org MGP MGP 99 Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings: (2011-12 cut scores) MGP 1 Well Below Average (35) Below Average (41) Average (52) Well Above Average (69) MGP 99 MGP MGP Ineffective Highly Effective Upper limit CR for Ineffective (44) 12 www.engageNY.org Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings (2011-12 cut scores) Well Below Average (35) MGP 1 Below Average (41) Well Above Average (69) Average (52) MGP 99 MGP MGP Ineffective Highly Effective MGP Developing MGP Effective MGP Effective MGP Developing 13 Upper CI for Ineffective (44) www.engageNY.org MGP Effective NYS Growth Subcomponent Results for 2011-12: Teachers Rating & Points (2011–12 ) Highly Effective 18–20 2206 7% 25,578 77% Developing 3–8 3341 10% Ineffective 0–2 2004 6% Effective 9–17 Total 14 Number of Percent of Teacher MGPs Teacher MGPs 33,129 www.engageNY.org NYS results for 2011-12: Principals Rating & Points (2011–12 ) 15 Number of Percent of Principal MGPs Principal MGPs Highly Effective 18–20 223 6% Effective 9–17 2821 79% Developing 3–8 269 8% Ineffective 0–2 243 7% Total 3556 www.engageNY.org Assignment of Points with HEDI Category 16 HEDI Points Min MGP Max N of MGP Teachers HEDI Points Min MGP 0 3 28 660 0 16 36.5 71 1 29 32 651 1 37 39 75 2 33 35 693 2 39.5 41 97 3 29 35 241 3 34.5 41 22 4 36 37 826 4 41.5 42 65 5 38 38 495 5 42.5 42.5 40 6 39 39 535 6 43 43 37 7 40 40 561 7 43.5 43.5 41 8 41 41 683 8 44 44 64 9 36 44 2661 9 41.5 46 270 10 45 46 2001 10 46.5 48 350 11 47 49 3376 11 48.5 49 209 12 50 51 2432 12 49.5 50.5 328 13 52 54 3648 13 51 52 313 14 55 56 2415 14 52.5 53.5 324 15 57 59 3144 15 54 55 316 16 60 62 2624 16 55.5 57 353 17 63 68 3277 17 57.5 63.5 358 18 69 70 662 18 61 61.5 65 19 71 73 666 19 62 63 70 20 74 96 878 20 63.5 74 88 Teachers Principals Point value of 3 includes educators with MGPs in the Ineffective category but CRs above 44 (for teachers) and above 46 (for principals) Point value of 9 includes educators with MGPs in the Developing category but CRs above state average Point value of 17 Includes educators with MGPs in the Highly Effective category but CRs below state average www.engageNY.org Max N of MGP Schools 17 www.engageNY.org