Transcript Navigating Today’s Climate

Connecting the DPI Dots:
CCSS, Balanced Assessment
and Educator Effectiveness
Updates
January 2012
Common Core State
Standards Updates
January 2012
Our Goal
• The Common Core State Standards are the
impetus for:
• A more connected, systems-change approach to school/district
innovation and improvement
• Clear definitions of “high quality” and “college and career
readiness”
• True instructional change for ALL educators and instructional
leaders
• Increased student LEARNING
4
School-wide Implementation Review
• An infrastructure is in place that ensures that
•
•
•
•
every student accesses grade level CCSS.
Educators and administrators know and
understand the content of the CCSS.
Literacy strategies are used to deepen students’
understanding of each discipline.
A comprehensive system is in place so students
develop the dispositions and skills to prepare
them for college and career.
Formative and summative classroom
assessments are used to gauge student progress
and make instructional decisions.
Items currently in progress
• CCSS School-wide Implementation Review
• Disciplinary literacy Google sites in each
content area
• Planning underway for content support for
educators in ELA and mathematic
• Partnership between PK-12 and IHEs to
assist in common language, approach,
priorities around CCSS implementation
Some things to do TODAY
• Download WI CCSS Guidance documents for ELA
and mathematics and begin content area PLC
conversations
• Download WI CCSS Guidance documents for
disciplinary literacy and begin a conversation about
DL with your school-level leadership team
• Download and examine the SBAC Content
Specifications and consider the implications for
curriculum and instruction
• Visit www.readwisconsin.net and join a community of
practice to implement the CCSS to improve reading
instruction
Getting SMARTER: The
Future of Online Balanced
Assessment in Wisconsin
January 2012
Today
• SMARTER Balanced Assessment
Consortium
• Background
• System overview
• Updates
• Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium
• WIDA Consortium
Changes in Assessment
• We know the WKCE, WAA-SwD, and ACCESS
for ELLs assessments are going away.
• What will replace them? How will the new
assessments be different?
Current
Assessment
New Assessment
Changes
WKCE
SMARTER Balanced
Assessment System
Spring administration; online;
adaptive; new item types
WAA-SwD
Dynamic Learning Maps Spring administration; online;
based on learning maps
ACCESS for
ELLs
ASSETS for ELs
Online; ELP standards based
on CCSS
An Introduction
29 Member States
Assessment System Components
Summative assessments
benchmarked to college
and career readiness
Common Core
State Standards
specify K-12
expectations for
college and career
readiness
Teachers can access
formative processes
and tools to improve
instruction
All students leave
high school college
and career ready
Interim assessments
that are flexible, open,
and provide actionable
feedback
Assessment System Components
Assessment system that balances summative, interim, and formative components for ELA and mathematics:
Summative Assessment (Computer Adaptive)
•
Mandatory comprehensive assessment in grades 3–8 and 11 (testing window within
the last 12 weeks of the instructional year) that supports accountability and
measures growth
•
Selected response, short constructed response, extended constructed response,
technology enhanced, and performance tasks
Interim Assessment (Computer Adaptive)
•
Optional comprehensive and content-cluster assessment
•
Learning progressions
•
Available for administration throughout the year
•
Selected response, short constructed response, extended constructed response,
technology enhanced, and performance tasks
Formative Processes and Tools
•
Optional resources for improving instructional learning
•
Assessment literacy
Timeline
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
FUTURE OF ALTERNATE
ASSESSMENT IN WISCONSIN
General Supervision Enhancement
Grant (GSEG) 2010-2014
IDEA funded grant awarded by the Office of
Special Education Programs, at the U.S. Dept. of
Education.
• Four Years
• Two consortia were awarded grants
• National Center and State Collaborative
• Dynamic Learning Maps
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
http://dynamiclearningmaps.org/
DLM Consortium Member States
Outcomes of the Consortium
• New extended standards and achievement level
•
•
•
•
descriptors based on the Common Core State
Standards for ELA and Math
Learning maps, which will include tasks of various
proficiency levels leading to formative assessment and
tools for educators.
Annual summative assessment (used for
accountability purposes)- online, adaptive
Professional development modules for teacher
training
Advanced feedback and reporting systems (including
growth modeling)
Assessment System Components
An assessment system that provides a summative (point-intime) assessment as well as formative and interim
assessment components for ELA and mathematics throughout
the year.
1. Computer adaptive summative assessment
• Grades 3–8 and 11 (testing window in the Spring)
• Selected response, constructed response, technology
enhanced instructionally relevant items
2. Computer adaptive formative and interim tools
• Based on learning maps
• Administered throughout the year
3. Professional development modules for educators
4. Advanced feedback and reporting systems
Contacts
Kristen Burton
Office of Educational Accountability
[email protected]
Erin Faasuamalie
Special Education Team
[email protected]
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
For more information
• Ongoing updates are available in the OEA Newsletter
• Produced quarterly during the school year
• Available online: http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/dacnwltrs.html
• SBAC Quarterly Reports
• Available on OEA’s SBAC webpage:
http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/sbac.html
• General SBAC info: www.smarterbalanced.org
• Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium
• http://dynamiclearningmaps.org
• WIDA Consortium (ASSETS for ELs)
• http://wida.us.index.aspx
An Update on
Educator Effectiveness
in the State of Wisconsin
January 2012
Design Team
• American Federation of Teachers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(AFT) (Bryan Kennedy)
Association of Wisconsin School Administrators
(AWSA) (Jim Lynch)
Office of the Governor
(Michael Brickman)
Professional Standards Council
(PSC) (Lisa Benz)
Wisconsin Association of Colleges of Teacher Education
(WACTE) (Julie Underwood)
Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges & Universities
(WAICU) (Kathy Lake)
Wisconsin Association of School Boards
(WASB) (John Ashley)
Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators
(WASDA) (Miles Turner)
Wisconsin Education Association Council
(WEAC) (Mary Bell)
Guiding Principles
An educator evaluation system must deliver
information that
• Guides effective educational practice that is aligned with
•
•
•
•
•
•
student learning and development.
Documents evidence of effective educator practice.
Documents evidence of student learning.
Informs appropriate professional development.
Informs educator preparation programs.
Supports a full range of human resource decisions.
Is credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and uniform across
districts.
Definition of Effective Educators
• Effective Teacher: An effective teacher consistently uses
educational practices that foster the intellectual, social
and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable
growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.
• Effective Principal: An effective principal shapes school
strategy and educational practices that foster the
intellectual, social and emotional growth of children,
resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in
meaningful ways.
Seamless Transitions
Preservice
Evaluation
Licensing
In-service
PI34
Teachers
Foundation for
Teacher Practice
Framework for
Teacher Evaluation
Interstate New Teacher
Charlotte Danielson
Domains and Components
Assessment and Support
Consortium (InTASC)
Model Core Teaching
Standards
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Domain 2: The Classroom
Environment
Domain 3: Instruction
Domain 4: Professional
Responsibilities
Principals
Foundation for
Principal Practice
Framework for
Principal Evaluation
2008 Interstate School
Subordinate functions of
ISLLC standards
Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC)
Standards
Equivalency Review Process
• Districts may create their own rubrics of
educator practice.
• Districts must apply to the State
Superintendent for approval through an
equivalency review process.
Educator Practice
Teacher Practice
Principal Practice
Each component should be
evaluated on multiple
sources of evidence. These
could include:
• Observations of teacher
practice
• Review of documents
• Surveys/data
• Discussions with the
teacher
Each component should be
evaluated on multiple
sources of evidence. These
could include:
• Observations of principal
practice
• Review of documents
• Interviews with
stakeholders
• Surveys/data
• Discussions with the
principal
System Weights
Educator
Practice
50%
50%
Student
Growth
Models of Practice Detail
(50 % of evaluation)
Teachers
InTASC
Danielson’s
4 components,
22 elements
Principals
ISLLC
50%
50%
Student Outcomes
Student Outcome Detail
(50% of evaluation)
State Assessment
Models of
Practice
15.0%
15.0%
50.0%
District Assessment
15.0%
Student Learning Objectives
2.5%
District Choice 2.5%
School-wide Reading (Elementary
Graduation (High School)
Student Outcome Weights—PK- 8
State assessment, district assessment,
SLOs, and other measures
SLOs and other measures
State assessment
SLO
District assessment
SLOs
School-wide reading
School-wide reading
District choice
District choice
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
Student Outcome Weights—9 -12
District assessment, SLOs, and other
measures
SLOs
District assessment
SLO
SLO
Graduation rate
Graduation rate
District choice
District choice
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
Educator Effectiveness System Matrix
Student Outcomes
Models of Practice
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
*
*
*
3
4
*
5
*
*
•Asterisks indicate a mismatch between educator’s practice performance and student outcomes and requires
a focused review to determine why the mismatch is occurring and what, if anything, needs to be corrected.
Category Ratings
Developing: does not meet expectations and
requires additional support and directed action
Effective: areas of strength and improvement
addressed through professional development
Exemplary: expand expertise through professional
development and use expertise in leadership
Educator Effectiveness Timeline
Stage 2
Piloting
Stage 1
Developing
2011-12
Framework
Release
Model
Development
Developmental
Districts
2012-13
Voluntary Pilots
Development
work
Evaluator and
Educator training
System training
Stage 3
Implementing
2013-14
2014-15
Pilot Evaluation
Model revisions
Training
continued
Statewide
implementation
strategy
Educator
Effectiveness
system
implemented
statewide
Continuous Improvement
Educator Effectiveness Timeline
Stage 1
Developing
2011-12
Framework
Release
Model
Development
Developmental
Districts
Timeline: January – June 2012
Work groups meet once or twice
per month
Fundamental Tasks in Stage 1
• Teacher Practice rubric
• Principal Practice rubric
• Student/School Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
• Data Systems Development & Management
Framework
• Pre-Pilot Process
• Evaluation Process and Manuals
Teacher Practice Rubric
Work Group Representatives:
Actions & Products:
• DPI
• Rubric review & adaptation.
• WCER
• Stakeholder representatives:
teachers
principals
district leaders
Draft teacher rubric developed by
March 2012
Final rubric completed by
May 2012
• Identification of evidence sources
determined by end of April 2012
• Evidence & rubric weight scoring
determination process completed by end
of June 2012
• Evidence collection forms & processes
completed by end of June 2012
Principal Practice Rubric
Work Group Representatives:
Actions & Products:
• DPI
• Rubric review & adaptation.
• WCER
• Stakeholder representatives:
teachers
principals
district leaders
Draft principal rubric developed
by March 2012
Final rubric completed
by May 2012
• Identification of evidence sources
determined by end of April 2012
• Evidence & rubric weight scoring
determination process completed by
end of June 2012
• Evidence collection forms & processes
completed by end of June 2012
Student/School Learning Outcome
Work Group Representatives:
• WCER
• Stakeholder representatives:
teachers
principals
district leaders
Actions & Products:
• Create “checklist” for selecting & creating
SLOs by reviewing existing versions
(Denver, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Austin,
Rhode Island) & modify as necessary.
• Scoring rubric: beginning with guidance
developed previously by other districts, and
adapting as necessary, create a rubric for
evaluators (principals and/or content
experts) to use in evaluating SLO evidence
submitted by teachers.
• Process document: create a document
(perhaps a “short” and a “long” version)
which describes the entire process for
creating SLOs, gathering evidence, and
rating evidence, with timelines for each
step in the process. This document could
form the basis for school-level, districtlevel, or regional trainings around the SLO
process.
Data Systems Development
& Management Framework
Work Group Representatives:
Actions & Products:
• DPI
• Status report due in June 2012
• WCER
• Stakeholder representatives:
teachers
principals
district leaders
containing:
current status of statewide SIS
when specific areas of
functionality within SIS
will be available
when a pilot version of “full”
system implementation will
be possible for a select
group of districts
• Preliminary report & recommendations
regarding a “digitization tool” for
capturing and storing practice data.
Pre-Pilot Process
Work Group Representatives:
Actions & Products:
• DPI
• WCER
• External evaluator
• Pre-pilot of SLO process will need
to include:
an assessment of the SLO
process for teachers
& principals SLOs
the assessment constructed
as “action research”
designed to maximize
feedback from teachers
& principals
• The review of the pre-pilot work will
be completed by end of June 2012.
Evaluation Process & Manuals
Work Group Representatives:
Actions & Products:
• DPI
• WCER
• Representatives from SLO and
• Teacher evaluation manual will
educator practice teams
encompass the process for
evaluating teacher practice and the
student learning objective
measures.
The draft manual will be
completed by end of
June 2012
• Principal evaluation manual will
encompass the process for
evaluating principal practice and the
school learning objective measures.
The draft manual will be
completed by end of
June 2012
Educator Effectiveness Timeline*
Stage 2
Piloting
2012-13
Voluntary Pilots
Development
work
Evaluator and
Educator training
System training
2013-14
Pilot Evaluation
Model revisions
Training
continued
Statewide
implementation
strategy
Continuous Improvement
*All work contingent on funding and resources
Evaluator & Educator Training
A training program will be developed which
will:
• Describe both educator practice and
student outcome data collection and
feedback.
• Explain value-added student outcomes
• Describe formative and summative
evaluation processes
• Explain performance rating categories
Voluntary Pilots
• Diverse school districts will pilot the state model
(urban, suburban and rural school districts).
• Pilot will be conducted for one full school year.
• Large districts will pilot test in a sample of
schools . Smaller districts will pilot test in a
substantial portion or perhaps all of the district’s
schools.
• Evaluators and those being evaluated will be
trained before participating in the pilot test.
Pilot Evaluation
An external evaluator will evaluate the pilot
program which will include formative and
summative feedback on the following:
• Implementation process
• Understanding and acceptance
• Reliability
• Validity
• Impact on educator practice
Contact information
• DPI Educator Effectiveness webpage at
http://dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/edueff.html
• Beverly Cann, DPI Education Consultant at
[email protected] or 608-267-9263