Upload
jadyn-kingston
View
215
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Connecting the DPI Dots: CCSS, Balanced Assessment and Educator Effectiveness UpdatesJanuary 2012
Common Core State Standards UpdatesJanuary 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 WisconsinJanuary 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
Common Core State Standards
specify K-12 expectations for
college and career readiness
All students leave high school college and career ready
Assessment System Components
Teachers can accessformative processes and tools to improve
instruction
Interim assessments that are flexible, open, and provide actionable
feedback
Summative assessments benchmarked to college
and career readiness
Assessment System ComponentsAssessment 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-in-time) 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
ContactsKristen Burton
Office of Educational Accountability
Erin Faasuamalie
Special Education Team
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 WisconsinJanuary 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.
Pre-service
Licensing
In-servicePI34
Evaluation
Seamless Transitions
TeachersFoundation for
Teacher Practice
Interstate New Teacher
Assessment and Support
Consortium (InTASC)
Model Core Teaching
Standards
Framework for
Teacher Evaluation
Charlotte Danielson
Domains and ComponentsDomain 1: Planning and Preparation
Domain 2: The Classroom
Environment
Domain 3: Instruction
Domain 4: Professional
Responsibilities
PrincipalsFoundation for
Principal Practice
2008 Interstate School
Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC)
Standards
Framework for Principal Evaluation
Subordinate functions of 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 PracticeEach 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
Principal PracticeEach 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
50%Student Growth
EducatorPractice
50%50%
TeachersInTASC
Danielson’s4 components,22 elements
PrincipalsISLLC
Student Outcomes
Models of Practice Detail (50 % of evaluation)
Student Outcome Detail (50% of evaluation)
15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
2.5%2.5%
50.0%
State Assessment
District Assessment
School-wide Reading (Elementary-Middle)Graduation (High School)
Student Learning Objectives
Models of Practice
District Choice
Student Outcome Weights—PK- 8
State assessment, district assessment, SLOs, and other measures SLOs and other measures
District choice
School-wide reading
SLOs
District assessment
State assessment
0 10 20 30 40 50
District choice
School-wide reading
SLO
0 10 20 30 40 50
Student Outcome Weights—9 -12
District assessment, SLOs, and other measures SLOs
District choice
Graduation rate
SLO
0 10 20 30 40 50
District choice
Graduation rate
SLO
District assessment
0 10 20 30 40 50
Educator Effectiveness System Matrix
Student Outcomes
Models of
Practice
1 2 3 4 5
1 * *
2 *
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 1Developing
Stage 2Piloting
Stage 3Implementing
Continuous Improvement
Framework ReleaseModel
DevelopmentDevelopmental
Districts
Voluntary Pilots
Development work
Evaluator and Educator training System training
Pilot Evaluation
Model revisionsTraining
continuedStatewide
implementation strategy
Educator Effectiveness
system implemented
statewide
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Educator Effectiveness Timeline
Stage 1Developing
Framework ReleaseModel Development
Developmental Districts
2011-12
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 RubricWork Group Representatives:
• DPI• WCER• Stakeholder representatives:
teachers
principals
district leaders
Actions & Products:
• Rubric review & adaptation.
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 RubricWork Group Representatives:
• DPI• WCER• Stakeholder representatives:
teachers
principals
district leaders
Actions & Products:
• Rubric review & adaptation.
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 OutcomeWork 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, district-level, or regional trainings around the SLO process.
Data Systems Development & Management FrameworkWork Group Representatives:
• DPI • WCER• Stakeholder representatives:
teachers
principals
district leaders
Actions & Products:
• Status report due in June 2012 containing:
current status of statewide SISwhen 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:
• DPI • WCER• External
evaluator
Actions & Products:
• 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:
• DPI• WCER• Representatives
from SLO and educator practice teams
Actions & Products:
• Teacher evaluation manual will 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 2Piloting
Continuous Improvement
Voluntary PilotsDevelopment work
Evaluator and Educator training System training
Pilot EvaluationModel revisions
Training continuedStatewide implementation strategy
*All work contingent on funding and resources
2012-13 2013-14
Evaluator & Educator TrainingA 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 EvaluationAn 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