Transcript Preliminary: Distribution of OFFICIAL TPE Ratings as of 8/5/2014

TPE: Housekeeping and Updates
November 13, 2014
Dave Volrath, Planning and Development Officer
And TPE Action Team
Agenda
• Appreciation and acknowledgement to LEA partners
• Grants
– What’s out there
– Status
– Current challenges in payment
•
•
•
•
•
Brief review of the MSEB report
Update on CTAC report and SLO-MOU
Update on Convenings and Pipeline
Starting to think about next year’s data collection
Q&A
Status of 3 Grants
• Implementation
–
–
–
–
–
$497K still on the table to be claimed
5 LEAs have claimed nothing
4 LEA have claimed partial
Only funds encumbered as of September 2014 can be claimed
Likelihood these funds can be kept for LEAs; mechanism not
determined
• iPad
– 12 LEAs have not claimed yet
– Grants were in excess of the required amount; plan to “replenish”
• Sustaining
– Only 8 LEAs have submitted C-125 and narrative
– Anticipate it takes at least 3 weeks to create a NOGA
Getting Paid
• Mindset at MSDE is “audit readiness”
• You need to provide:
– Your summary invoice to MSDE
– The supporting invoices and proof of payment
– The supporting invoices must transparently and
precisely map to your request for payment
– The AFR screenshot
• For the iPads, this is a breeze. Not so easy for
Implementation with multiple parts.
An almost successful approach
This real example almost fits the bill. The invoices are clearly marked.
This Title IIA comment confused
Accounting.
Disentangling Invoice 4072 from Title IIA or a clearer narrative would do the trick.
Another example, more problematic
How are these items linked? What is the PM invoice?
Where is the Dell invoice?
The FICA relates to?
Pages and pages of sign-in sheets were provided but not in a way Accounting
was able to understand.
Getting Paid: General Thoughts
• This is not a one-off conversation. This will
apply to all RTTT grants.
• Please anticipate that Accounting will only be
comfortable with a simple set of documents
that “tic and tie.”
• Don’t send 200 pages of sign-in sheets. A one
page example is fine, but provide a summary
page that cleanly explains the number of
units, hourly rate, total bill.
Quick Overview of TPE Ratings
• 43,805 teachers and 1,112 principals
• MSDE only provided descriptive statistics although
we did delve into some of the subtleties
• Data have gone to WestEd for the inferential analysis
• Poverty and minority slides were received with
considerable interest and concern
• MSA had a small effect, and more often helped than
harmed
• LEAs should have a look at
– Any changes to non-MSA teachers when MSA is removed
– Performance of accrued points at rating level transitions
Composition of the State n = 43,805
The 5 largest LEAs represent 67% of teacher ratings
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.3%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
11.6% 11.4%
9.7%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
5.3%
3.8% 3.7%
3.1%
2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2%
1.5% 1.3% 1.2%
0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%
0.5% 0.4%
Summary view of
43,805 teacher ratings
100%
90%
80%
17857
70%
Highly Effective (40.8%)
60%
50%
Effective (56.4%)
40%
30%
24719
20%
10%
0%
1229
Ineffective (2.8%)
Statewide distribution of teacher
ratings by grade span configuration
100%
90%
80%
23.6%
43.9%
45.4%
38.7%
40.8%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
73.4%
59.1%
56.4%
52.8%
52.2%
3.3%
2.5%
2.1%
3.0%
2.8%
Elementary n=19170
Middle n=8193
High n=12229
Combined Grades
n=4213
All n=43805
20%
10%
0%
Statewide distribution of teacher
ratings by LEA size
100%
90%
80%
39.9%
36.2%
47.7%
40.8%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
60.8%
56.9%
56.4%
51.7%
20%
10%
0%
3.2%
Large LEAs n=34963
0.6%
Medium LEAs n=6118
3.0%
2.8%
Small LEAS n=2724
All n=43805
Large LEAs: Anne Arundel, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Carroll, Charles, Harford, Howard, Prince
George’s
Medium LEAs: Calvert, Cecil, Saint Mary’s, Washington, Wicomico, Worcester
Small LEAs: Allegany, Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, Talbot
Statewide distribution of teacher
ratings by LEA geographical location
100%
90%
22.7%
38.2%
80%
70%
40.8%
47.2%
64.1%
60%
50%
72.6%
40%
59.7%
30%
20%
56.4%
50.5%
35.5%
10%
0%
0.5%
Western n=3860
2.3%
2.1%
4.7%
2.8%
Central n=22911
Eastern n=4562
Southern n=12472
All n=43805
Central LEAs: Anne Arundel, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Harford, Howard
Eastern LEAs: Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne’s , Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, Worcester
Southern LEAs: Calvert, Charles, Prince George’s, Saint Mary’s
Western LEAs: Allegany, Carroll, Garrett, Washington
Restoring MSA to models slightly moves
teacher ratings toward Effective and has
minimal effect on Ineffective
100%
90%
80%
17857
16779
24719
25743
1228
1282
All State w/o MSA (Official)
All State w MSA
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Delta for MSA teachers: minimum effect on
“Ineffective” ratings
86.6% of teachers stay in the same rating category;
All 143 “Delta +1” teachers rose from Ineffective to Effective
925 of 980 “Delta -1” teachers went from Highly Effective to Effective
Pct Delta -1
10.2%
86.6%
3.2%
Pct Same
Pct Delta +1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Schools in the highest quartile for poverty have more
ineffective and fewer highly effective teachers than do
schools in the lowest quartile for poverty
100%
90%
19.4%
80%
41.8%
70%
61.9%
60%
50%
40%
76.0%
55.7%
30%
20%
36.6%
10%
0%
4.6%
2.5%
1.5%
High Poverty n=10,899
Middle Range n=22,984
Low Poverty n=9,922
Poverty is defined using the method for the Annual APR report: n FARMS/Enrollment sorted into quartiles
Schools in the highest quartile for minority students
have more ineffective, fewer highly effective teachers
than do schools in the lowest quartile for minority
100%
90%
12.1%
80%
49.9%
70%
53.4%
60%
50%
82.5%
40%
30%
47.9%
20%
45.6%
10%
0%
5.4%
2.3%
1.1%
High Minority n=11,546
Middle Range n=21,528
Low Minority n=10,731
Minority is defined using the method for the Annual APR report: n non-White/Enrollment sorted into quartiles
Strand I Schools (meeting all annual indicator targets)
have more highly effective teachers than do Strand 5
schools (failing to meet annual indicator targets)
Strand 1
51.6%
Strand 2
46.7%
47.7%
Strand 3
50.4%
38.7%
35.0%
62.3%
Strand 5
36.1%
60.0%
10%
20%
1.9%
58.4%
Strand 4
0%
1.6%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
3.0%
2.7%
4.0%
80%
90%
Strands are derived from the 2013 School Progress Index; Data for 42,442 teachers linked to an SPI Strand
100%
Distribution of OFFICIAL TPE Teacher Ratings
MSA Excluded; N=43,805
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Composition of the State n = 1,112
The 5 largest LEAs represent 61% of principal ratings
20.0%
19.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.8%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
10.8%
10.4%
8.0%
6.4%
6.0%
4.4%
4.0%
4.0%
3.9%
3.2%
2.5%
2.0%
0.0%
2.3%
2.2%
2.2%
1.8%
1.3%
1.2%
1.1%
1.1%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.5%
Statewide distribution of principal
ratings by grade span configuration
100%
90%
30.8%
30.8%
80%
48.1%
70%
48.3%
57.7%
60%
50%
40%
67.0%
30%
20%
65.8%
50.3%
50.6%
41.5%
10%
0%
0.8%
Elementary n=619
1.2%
Middle n=162
2.2%
3.4%
High n=185
Combined Grades
n=146
1.4%
All n=1112
Schools in the highest quartile for poverty have more
ineffective and fewer highly effective principals than do
schools in the lowest quartile for poverty
100%
90%
28.3%
80%
49.6%
70%
73.5%
60%
50%
40%
68.8%
30%
49.2%
20%
26.5%
10%
0%
2.9%
High Poverty n=314
1.2%
Middle Range n=579
0.0%
Low Poverty n=219
Poverty is defined using the method for the Annual APR report: n FARMS/Enrollment sorted into quartiles
Schools in the highest quartile for minority students
have more ineffective, fewer highly effective principals
than do schools in the lowest quartile for minority
100%
90%
26.9%
80%
49.5%
70%
61.4%
60%
50%
40%
69.7%
30%
48.8%
20%
38.6%
10%
0%
3.4%
High Minority n=320
0.0%
Middle Range n=497
1.7%
Low Minority n=295
Minority is defined using the method for the Annual APR report: n non-White/Enrollment sorted into quartiles
At the Statewide level, distribution of principal
ratings are generally consistent across SPI Strands.
Strand 4 schools have both the most highly effective (53.3%) and the most
ineffective principals (2.5%)
Strand 1
44.9%
Strand 2
55.1%
52.2%
Strand 3
46.6%
46.9%
Strand 4
10%
20%
1.7%
44.3%
44.1%
0%
1.2%
51.4%
53.3%
Strand 5
0.0%
2.5%
54.3%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1.6%
80%
90%
Strands are derived from the 2013 School Progress Index; Data for 1066 principals linked to an SPI Strand
100%
Distribution of OFFICIAL TPE Principal Ratings
MSA Excluded; N=1,112
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
The TPE Team was very cautious and
made no “pronouncements”
The Team suggested:
• Actual differences in teacher and
principal performance
• Differences in LEA evaluation model
performance
• Precision in fitting cut scores
SLO Headlines
• “Real Progress in Maryland” reaffirmed what
we already know
– It’s a heavy lift
– Penetrating the classroom is hard
– Managing all the logistics is hard, and good
systems are critical
– The closer folks are to the work, the better they
feel about it
– SLO investments are a good place for Sustaining
dollars
Update on CTAC/SLOs
• MSDE is working with CTAC to annotate SLOs
to create an LEA resource. Samples
should represent:
–Various grades and subjects
–Assessed and non-assessed areas
–Teacher AND Principal samples
–Aligned to the Quality Rating Rubric
• No sample will be identified by LEA
Update on SLO Collaboration MOU
•
•
•
•
Fall convenings
Overview of feedback
December focus on communication
Plans to close the Quality Control loop for PY 5
Next Year’s Data Collection
• There will be no MSA strand to collect
• The APR variables we discussed last year
festered with USDE again: eligible for tenure,
retained, promoted, compensation
• Headwinds behind interest to link teachers to
preparatory programs or strands
• MSEB interest in how 1st/2nd year teachers
fare one year later
Contacts
Dave Volrath, Planning and Development Officer
[email protected] , 410 767 0504
Ben Feldman, TPE Team
[email protected] , 410 767 0142
Today’s data release on: LEA/School Teacher-Principal Evaluations.