Transcript Student Learning Objectives

Student Learning Objectives
Mr. Fred Cohen
Dr. Valerie C. D’Aguanno
Dr. Robert Greenberg
Mrs. Laverne Mitchell
www.engageNY.org
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Caveat: These training materials include some items from the anticipated changes from enactment of amendments to Education Law 3012-c proposed in February 2012 with the Executive Budget and Settlement of Litigation. To
the extent that language in these training materials differs from the regulatory language ultimately adopted to conform to the statute, the language in the regulation controls.
Our Trip to Albany ~ Your Trip to BOCES
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
2
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
SED’s April Training Objectives
• Understand how teacher evaluation promotes teacher growth
and development
• Understand the expectations for evidence, interpretation of
evidence, and scoring of teacher practice
• Use a quality rating system to improve and ensure the rigor
and comparability of SLOs
• Address implementation issues related to SLOs
• Understand the nuances of the indicators/elements of the
frameworks for refining evidence collection, alignment and
scoring
• Understand how teachers of ELLs and SWD are observed using
the rubrics
• Collaborate with colleagues
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
3
TLE Training Status
Required Elements for training of evaluators and lead evaluators
(30.2-9)
Student Use of
Evidence Growth & state
Teaching Based
Value approved Assess.
Elements Standards Observ’n Added rubrics
Tools
Content#
1
2
Module 1
X
X
X
Module 2
X
X
X
Module 3
X
Module 4
X
Module 5
X
Module 6
X
3
X
4
State &
State
Local
Instruct
measures Report’g Scoring
achieve. System Method.
5
6
7
8
Evaluate
ELLs &
SWDs
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
IRR
4
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
TLE Training Status
Required Elements for training of evaluators and lead evaluators
(30.2-9)
Student Use of
Evidence Growth & state
Teaching Based
Value approved Assess.
Elements Standards Observ’n Added rubrics
Tools
Content#
1
2
Module 1
X
X
X
Module 2
X
X
X
Module 3
X
Module 4
X
Module 5
X
Module 6
X
3
X
4
State &
State
Local
Instruct
measures Report’g Scoring
achieve. System Method.
5
6
7
8
Evaluate
ELLs &
SWDs
9
X
X
X
X
X
Module 7
X
X
X
X
X
X
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
IRR
5
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Today’s Agenda
• Look at evaluating teachers of ELLs and SWDs
• Introduction to SLO rubric/checklist
• Implementation timeline considerations
• Statewide Instructional Reporting System
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
6
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Meeting the Needs of ALL Learners
element 9
Report on “Teacher Evaluation in Effective Schools and Classrooms for
ALL Learners” written by a committee convened by AFT
• Committee of experts outlined four conditions necessary for all
students, including students with disabilities and ELLs, to be
successful
1.
2.
3.
4.
All Learners and Equal Access
Individual Strengths and Challenges and Supporting Diversity
Reflective, Responsive, and Differentiated Teaching Strategies
Culture, Community, and Collaboration
(Ell Experts: Diane August, Ph.D., Delia Pompa, Diane Staehr Fenner, Ph.D., Giselle Lundy-Ponce;
Students with disabilities experts: Peter Kozik and Spencer Salend)
• NYSUT rubrics and modified ASCD rubrics were analyzed for
alignment to the four conditions – strong alignment was determined
Document is being written that will detail the four conditions and include
recommendations for teacher evaluation systems
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
7
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Meeting the Needs of ALL Learners
element 9
Part I: Article discussion
“Moving beyond standardized test scores in evaluating
special education teachers”
Read the article selections:
• Highlight areas of interest as you read
• Discuss the following questions as a small group
1) How do the articles address the role of all students in teaching
and learning?
2) What are the implications for how teachers plan and deliver
instruction?
3) What are the implications for teacher observation?
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
8
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Meeting the Needs of ALL Learners
element 9
Part II
In your groups, review one standard (NYSUT – 3, 4, 5)
or domain (ASCD – 2, 3) in your selected rubric.
• Which particular elements [ASCD] or indicators
[NYSUT] are critical for an observer to focus on in order
to assess the teacher’s skill at meeting the needs of all
learners including:
• English Language Learners
• Students with Disabilities
• Students who perform significantly below grade level
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
9
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
SLO..LY
We turn….
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
10
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
SLO Template
All SLOs MUST include the following basic components:
Population
Learning
Content
These are the students assigned to the course section(s) in this SLO - all
students who are assigned to the course section(s) must be included in the
SLO. (Full class rosters of all students must be provided for all included
course sections.)
What is being taught over the instructional period covered? standards?
Will this goal apply to all standards applicable to a course or just to
specific priority standards?
Interval of
Instructional
Time
What is the instructional period covered (if not a year, rationale for
semester/quarter/etc)?
Evidence
What specific assessment(s) will be used to measure this goal? The
assessment must align to the learning content of the course.
Baseline
What is the starting level of students’ knowledge of the learning content
at the beginning of the instructional period?
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
11
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
SLO Template – Pg. 2
Target(s)
What is the expected outcome (target) of students’ level of knowledge of the
learning content at the end of the instructional period?
HEDI
How will evaluators determine what range of student performance
“meets” the goal (effective) versus “well-below” (ineffective), “below”
(developing), and “well-above” (highly effective)?
HIGHLY
EFFECTIVE
20
19
18
EFFECTIVE
17
16
15
14
13
12
DEVELOPING
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
INEFFECTIVE
4
3
2
1
0
Rationale
Describe the reasoning behind the choices regarding learning content,
evidence, and target and how they will be used together to prepare
students for future growth and development in subsequent
grades/courses, as well as college and career readiness.
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
12
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
SLO – Grade 2 Sample
- SLO – Grade 2 ELA
- Roster
- Baseline data
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
13
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
SLO – Global History II Sample
- SLO – Global History II
- Roster
- Baseline data
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
14
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Introduction to the Rubric
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
15
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Introduction to the Rubric
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
16
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Introduction to the Rubric
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
17
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Rating the HEDI Criteria – Quality Rating 3
Meets all of the following:
• Meets Quality Rating 2 criteria.
• Requires 80% or more of students,
including special populations, to meet
their individual goals to earn 9 points
(minimum rating in the “effective”
category).
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
18
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Selecting a model: HEDI Scale
Who is HEDI and why is she bothering me now????
How will evaluators determine what range of student performance “meets” the goal (effective)
versus “well-below” (ineffective), “below” (developing), and “well-above” (highly effective)
HEDI Scoring
HIGHLY
EFFECTIVE
20
19
EFFECTIVE
18
17
16
15
14
13
DEVELOPING
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
INEFFECTIVE
4
3
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
2
1
0
Example: Science Teacher
(SED Guidance document)
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Example: Science Teacher
(SED Guidance document)
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Example: Science Teacher
(SED Guidance document)
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Example: Science Teacher
(SED Guidance document)
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Example: Science Teacher
(SED Guidance document)
No decision is more crucial than defining the target. A
teacher’s overall evaluation is based on how this task is
accomplished.
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Example: Science Teacher
(SED Guidance document)
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Science Teacher Example
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Science Teacher Example
Where did this evaluator’s score come from?
Who was consulted?
On what logic, formula, or experience was it based?
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Middle School Physical Education Example
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Example:
7th Grade Social Studies
SLO Subject
7R Social Studies
classes with 23 & 27
students
Baseline
A district created
pre-test.
TARGET (As
Approved by
Evaluator
75% of students will
score at least a 65%
on the post-test
Actual Results
83% of the students
ISP (including special
populations) scored
at least 65%
•
If this were the SLO, what HEDI score would you assign? What is your rationale?
•
What problems might you anticipate if you chose 9? Or 17?
•
Evaluator SLO
Score
When a target is chosen, the HEDI scale must be a prime consideration. Now imagine the task of
creating one, two, or three SLO’s for 80% of the teachers in your district!
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Example:
7 Honors Social Studies
SLO Subject
7H Social Studies
with 18 & 22
students
TARGET (As
Baseline
Approved by
Evaluator
A district created 85% of students
pre-test.
will score at least
a 85% on the
post
Actual Results
Evaluator SLO
Score
92% of the
students ISP
(including special
populations)
scored at least
85%
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Translating SLO’s to the HEDI Scale
Now, suppose you have to create a target for “x” number of SLO’s, AND
for each teacher you must calculate the 20% Local, the 60% of
teacher evaluation aligned to NYS teaching standards, AND you
must put it all together to calculate each teacher’s overall composite
score, AND have a way to report it all to SED ?
•
•
•
•
How?
Who?
When?
Oh No!
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Translating SLO’s to the HEDI Scale
 Each department/teacher has his or her own language within the
target that must be translated into a HEDI score. Having a translation
tool would become your Rosetta Stone.
 The BOCES Translation Scale is for use when the SLO model selected
uses percent of students as the descriptor for the target as you have
seen in the examples today.
 Once you accept the suggested template, setting the target percent
becomes your focus.
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Suggested Scale
Translating Targets to the HEDI Scale
www.engageNY.org
*Please see caveat
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Suggested Implementation Calendar
2012
September
October
December
January
February
March
April
May
27-31
20-24
13-17
6-10
www.engageNY.org
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
29-3
22-26
15-19
8-12
1-5
25-29
18-22
11-15
4-8
25-1
18-20
11-15
4-8
28-1
21-25
14-18
7-11
31-4
24-28
17-21
10-14
3-7
26-30
19-23
12-16
5-9
29-2
22-26
15-19
8-12
1-5
24-28
17-21
10-14
3-7
School SLO Trainings
Teachers Collect Baseline
Data
NYSAA Administration
Teachers Submit SLOs for
Approval
Administrators Approve SLOs
for Implementation
Administrators Monitor and
Support Teacher Effectiveness
District/School Formative
Testing
Administrators Conference
with Teachers on Progress of
High School Regents Exams
Administered
3-8 ELA State Testing
NYSESLAT - Speaking
3-8 Math State Testing
NYESLAT - Listening, etc.
Grade 4 & 8 Science Laboratories
Other SLO Summative
Assessments Administered
*Please see caveat
2013
November
34
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Thank you for your
participation!
www.engageNY.org
© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions
© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center
Caveat: These training materials include some items from the anticipated changes from enactment of amendments to Education Law 3012-c proposed in February 2012 with the Executive Budget and Settlement of
Litigation. To the extent that language in these training materials differs from the regulatory language ultimately adopted to conform to the statute, the language in the regulation controls .