1 / 64

State of Education Georgia Department of Education September 15, 2011

State of Education Georgia Department of Education September 15, 2011. Agenda. Teacher and Leader Evaluation Teacher and Leader Induction Guidelines Common Core GPS PARCC - Assessments Career Clusters College and Career Readiness Index. Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems.

chun
Télécharger la présentation

State of Education Georgia Department of Education September 15, 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State of EducationGeorgia Department of EducationSeptember 15, 2011

  2. Agenda • Teacher and Leader Evaluation • Teacher and Leader Induction Guidelines • Common Core GPS • PARCC - Assessments • Career Clusters • College and Career Readiness Index

  3. Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

  4. Setting the Stage “The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.” Lao Tzu “Great teachers and outstanding principals strive to help every student unlock their potential and develop the habits of mind that will serve them for a lifetime. They believe that every student has a gift—even when students doubt themselves.” Arne Duncan

  5. Update • Status of steering committees work Evaluation Steering Committee Value Added/Growth Committee Other Measures Committee • Integration of components into a comprehensive, aligned evaluation system for teachers and leaders

  6. Update • Cohesive, common-sense approach focusing on continuity and alignment • Emphasis on this being an integrated system, not a list of disjointed measures and components • Cleaner organization and terminology

  7. Teacher Keys Evaluation System Teacher Keys Evaluation System (Generates a Teacher Effectiveness Measure Score) Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (Data sources include observations and documentation) Surveys of Instructional Practice (Primary, Intermediate, Middle, and High School) Student Growth and Academic Achievement Tested Teachers - Student growth percentile/ value-added measure - Achievement gap reduction Non-tested Teachers - DOE-approved district achievement growth measures - Student Learning Objectives

  8. Leader Keys Evaluation System Leader Keys Evaluation System (Generates a Leader Effectiveness Measure Score) Leader Assessment on Performance Standards (Data sources include documentation of practice) • Governance and Leadership • Climate Surveys • Student Attendance • Retention of Effective Teachers • Student Achievement Growth • Student growth percentile/value-added measure • Achievement gap reduction

  9. Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards PLANNING Professional Knowledge Instructional Planning INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY Instructional Strategies Differentiated Instruction ASSESSMENT OF AND FOR LEARNING Assessment Strategies Assessment Uses LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Positive Learning Environment Academically Challenging Environment PROFESSIONALISM AND COMMUNICATION Professionalism Communication

  10. Leader Assessment on Performance Standards SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Instructional Leadership School Climate ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP Planning and Assessment Organizational Management HUMAN RESOURCES LEADERSHIP Human Resources Management Teacher/Staff Evaluation PROFESSIONALISM AND COMMUNICATION Professionalism Communications and Community Relations

  11. Surveys • Final versions of Surveys of Instructional Practice for teachers are being developed and aligned to the Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards • Final versions of climate surveys for leaders are being developed and aligned to the Leader Assessment on Performance Standards

  12. Surveys • Integration into the evaluation handbooks, training, and supporting materials • Electronic survey tools in development • Administration to be streamlined to minimize time commitment required

  13. Student Achievement / Growth • One concept, two types of measures • Value-added / student growth percentile measure for tested grades and subjects • District-level student learning objectives and other measures for non-tested grades and subjects

  14. Student Achievement / Growth • District-level student learning objectives and other measures for non-tested grades and subjects • Developed at the district level, approved by GaDOE • Existing assessments may be used whenever appropriate • Training and support will be provided by GaDOE

  15. Pilot Schedule • October 3-7, 2011: Training of GaDOE and system trainers on the Teacher Keys Evaluation System • October 10-14, 2011: Training of GaDOE SI personnel and RESA leaders on the Teacher Keys Evaluation System • October 2011-December 2011: Training provided for the twenty-six RT3 districts on the Teacher Keys Evaluation System (GaDOE leads with system trainers to support). • December 2011: Training of GaDOE trainers on the Leader Keys Evaluation System • January 2012: Training provided for district personnel in the 26 RT3 districts on the Leader Keys Evaluation System.

  16. Pilot Schedule • January – May 2012: RT3 Districts will pilot the Teacher Keys and Leader Keys Evaluation Systems. • End of 2011-2012 School Year: Reliability and validity study will be completed for the Teacher Keys Evaluation System and the Leader Keys Evaluation System. • 2012-2013 School Year: Restructured, validated evaluation systems will be used by the twenty-six RT3 districts in all schools, as well as offered to other districts, for school year 2012-2013. Up to 60 districts each year may choose to implement the new evaluation systems from 2012-2013 forward.

  17. Measurement of Student Growth Growth models move beyond proficiency or status indicators to describe the progress students, schools, and districts have made over the course of an academic year. Many believe growth better answers the question, “Are all students learning?” Growth models, in their most basic form, compare the academic performance of students between two points in time (such as previous year and current year).

  18. Why Focus on Growth? • Growth measures can help answer critical questions: • Did the student make a year’s worth of progress? • Is the student on track to meet standards? • Did the student grow more or less than similar students? • Growth measures can also be used to: • Enhance accountability • Improve teaching and learning • Provide an indication of educator effectiveness (when used in conjunction with other indicators)

  19. Approaches to Measuring Growth More Simplistic • Categorical • e.g. Growth from DNM to Meets • Gain Score • Current year’s scores – previous years’ scores • Requires a vertically-scaled assessment program More Sophisticated • Value-Added • Considers prior student achievement (and sometimes other background variables) to determine expected growth • Normative • Compare student performance to a norm group to determine if growth is typical, high, or low Note: All classification schemes have limitations; categories are not mutually exclusive. Note: There is no “best” approach. Suitability depends on purpose and use.

  20. How do Growth and Value Added Differ? Growth and value added models are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Any model that establishes a relationship between growth and effectiveness falls within the value added arena. Growth models become value added models when the results are attributed to an educator or a program.

  21. Growth Committee Work to Date • Committee’s prioritized growth model outcomes: • Educators have a clear understanding of growth needed for students to become proficient in a year’s time • Educators, holding high expectations for all students, have a deeper understanding of the impact of their teaching on the extent of student learning in classrooms, schools, districts • Educators are provided with reliable data with respect to the academic growth of students • Students and their parents have a clearer understanding of growth needed to reach proficiency and beyond • Community will have a clearer understanding of the extent of learning in schools

  22. Growth Committee Work to Date • State assessments to be included within any selected model: • CRCT, CRCT-M (if possible), EOCT • Deeper dive into experiences of others using value added and normative growth models 1. MA (SGP) 5. Atlanta Public (VAM-VARC) 2. TN (VAM-SAS) 6. White County(Pioneer RESA) 3. OH (VAM-SAS) 7. Dade County(VAM-SAS) 4. GA (SGP)

  23. Committee’s Top Priorities 1. The precision of the model must be prioritized when considering the trade-offs between simplicity and sophistication. 2. The model must account for cases in which students receive instruction from multiple teachers in the same core subject. 3. The model must account for student mobility. 4. The model should work in concert with other measures of effectiveness and be stable over time. 5. Georgia must own or have rights to the model methodology and outcome data. 6. The model must be able to show change in the effectiveness of Georgia’s work force over time.

  24. Committee’s Ongoing Work Priorities • The committee continues to make decisions regarding: • Teacher of Record and Contributing Professional Business Rules • Guidelines for determining which students and educators will be included in the selected model • Training plan for teachers, principals, districts and other stakeholders • Implementation guidelines • Reporting procedures • Communication • In addition, the state is working with a TAC to guide decisions regarding model selection, implementation, and usage

  25. Purposes of theInduction Task Force • Establish teacher and principal induction standards and guidelines, and • Inform statewide policy and development in the areas of teacher and principal induction.

  26. Career Ladder

  27. Induction Time Line • September 30, 2011 • Induction guidelines for teachers and principals will be published to the 26 RT3 school districts via webinar and web site • October 2011-May 2012 • Department of Education will provide technical assistance to the 26 RT3 districts in designing and developing their induction programs for teachers and principals. • Induction Task Force will develop standards and revise guidelines as needed. • June 2012-May 2013 • RT3 school districts implement teacher and principal induction programs.

  28. Induction Expectations • Induction guidelines should be scalable, with required elements and optional elements so that districts can tailor the induction programs to their specific needs. • RT3 school districts are required to develop and implement teacher and principal induction programs using these guidelines. • All school districts in the state will be encouraged to use the induction guidelines for teachers and principals.

  29. Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment

  30. We have a choice. We can simply defend what we have…or create what we need. Sixteen Trends Their Profound Impact on Our Future by Gary Marx

  31. The Common Core State Standards Initiative • Beginning in the spring of 2009, Governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia committed to developing a common core of state K-12 English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics standards. • The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a state-led effort coordinated by the • National Governors Association (NGA) and the • Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). • www.corestandards.org

  32. Why Common Core Standards • Preparation: The standards are college- and career-ready. They will help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in education and training after high school. • Competition: The standards are internationally benchmarked. Common standards will help ensure our students are globally competitive. • Equity: Expectations are consistent for all – and not dependent on a student’s zip code. • Clarity: The standards are focused, coherent, and clear. Clearer standards help students (and parents and teachers) understand what is expected of them. • Collaboration: The standards create a foundation to work collaboratively across states and districts, pooling resources and expertise, to create curricular tools, professional development, common assessments and other materials.

  33. Thomas Fordham InstituteGPS and CCSS in 2010 Georgia: Grade A- Clarity and Specificity 3/3 Content and Rigor 6/7 Total GPS Score 9/10 Georgia is one of eight states receiving at least 9/10 points. CCSS: Grade A- Clarity and Specificity 2/3 Content and Rigor 7/7 Total CCSS Score 9/10

  34. Why are the Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics right for Georgia? • Previous work with the GPS has prepared Georgia for the implementation of the CCGPS. • Prior teacher and administrator GPS training ensures a smooth transition. • Although some content may be in different grade levels in CCSS, nearly all of the ELA and mathematics standards are addressed. • CCSS expectations are consistent with a single/high-rigor diploma requirement for all students.

  35. K- High School CCGPS Subjects • English Language Arts (ELA) • Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects • Mathematics

  36. Common Core State Standards inEnglish Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects College and Career Readiness (CCR) Standards • Overarching standards for each strand that are further defined by grade-specific standards Grade-Level Standards in English Language Arts (CCGPS) • K-8, grade-by-grade • 9-10 and 11-12 grade bands for high school • Four strands: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects • Standards are embedded at grades K-5 • Content-specific literacy standards are provided for grades 6-8, 9-10, and 11-12

  37. College and Career Readiness Standards and Common Core State Standards • The College and Career Readiness Standards were written first and define the expectations for all students upon graduation from high school. • The K-12 grade-specific standards define end-of-year expectations and a cumulative progression designed to enable students to meet college and career readiness expectations no later than the end of high school. • Each Common Core State Standard is aligned to a college and career readiness standard.

  38. College and Career Readiness Standards(CCR) These 32 standards “anchor” the document and define general, cross-disciplinary literacy expectations that must be met for students to be prepared to enter college and workforce training programs ready to succeed. (10 Reading, 10 Writing, 6 Speaking & Listening, and 6 Language)

  39. Common Core for Mathematics Standards for Mathematical Content • K-8 grade-by-grade standards organized by domain • 9-12 high school standards organized by conceptual categories Standards for Mathematical Practice • Describe mathematical “habits of mind” • Offer standards for mathematical proficiency: reasoning, problem solving, modeling, decision making, and engagement • Connect with content standards in each grade

  40. K- 8 Mathematics Standards • The K-5 standards provide students with a solid foundation in whole numbers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions and decimals. • The 6-8 standards describe robust learning in geometry, algebra, and probability and statistics. • Modeled after the focus of standards from high-performing nations, the standards for grades 7 and 8 include significant algebra and geometry content. • Students who have completed 7th grade and mastered the content and skills will be prepared for algebra in 8th grade or after.

  41. High School Mathematics Standards • Call on students to practice applying mathematical ways of thinking to real world issues and challenges • Require students to develop a depth of understanding and ability to apply mathematics to novel situations, as college students and employees regularly are called to do • Emphasize mathematical modeling, the use of mathematics and statistics to analyze empirical situations, understand them better, and improve decisions • Identify the mathematics that all students should study in order to be college and career ready.

  42. Common Core Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS) Professional Learning and Implementation Timeline September 21, 2011 State-wide CCGPS meeting for educators and stakeholders provided by State School 3:00-4:00pm Superintendent, Dr. John Barge, and GaDOE staff via Georgia Public Broadcasting   Use the following link to access the session and recording: gpb.org/education/common-core August – Dec. 2011 Technical Assistance, Webinars, Transition Documents, Resource Development January – March 2012 K-12 grade by grade ELA and Mathematics teacher professional learning with live/interactive streaming via Georgia Public Broadcasting Sessions will be recorded. To access all of the CCGPS 2011-2012 Live Streamed Professional Learning sessions and recordings use the following link: gpb.org/education/common-core Ongoing professional learning and technical support will be provided for local districts/schools via RESA Mathematics Mentors and ELA Specialists and GaDOE staff 2012-2013 Year 1 Implementation/Transition 2013-2014 Year 2 Implementation; Field Test 2014-2015 Year 3 Implementation and Common Assessment Contacts: CCGPS Coordinator - Jan Wyche (jwyche@doe.k12.ga.us) ELA Program Coordinator - Kim Jeffcoat (kjeffcoat@doe.k12.ga.us) Mathematics Program Coordinator - Sandi Woodall (swoodall@doe.k12.ga.us)

  43. Common Core Assessment • Georgia is a governing state within the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), a consortium of 24 states focused on building a common assessment based on the Common Core. • Implementation is planned for the 2014-2015 SY

  44. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) Governing Board States Participating States

  45. Create High Quality Assessments • Summative Assessment Components: • Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) administered as close to the end of the school year as possible. The ELA/literacy PBA will focus on writing effectively when analyzing text. The mathematics PBA will focus on applying skills, concepts, and understandings to solve multi-step problems requiring abstract reasoning, precision, perseverance, and strategic use of tools • End-of-Year Assessment (EOY) administered after approx. 90% of the school year. The ELA/literacy EOY will focus on reading comprehension. The math EOY will be comprised of innovative, machine-scorable items • Formative Assessment Components: • Early Assessment designed to be an indicator of student knowledge and skills so that instruction, supports and professional development can be tailored to meet student needs • Mid-Year Assessment comprised of performance-based items and tasks, with an emphasis on hard-to-measure standards. After study, individual states may consider including as a summative component

  46. Create High-Quality Assessments Flexible • Mid-Year Assessment • Performance-based • Emphasis on hard to measure standards • Potentially summative • End-of-Year • Assessment • Innovative, computer-based items • Performance-Based • Assessment (PBA) • Extended tasks • Applications of concepts and skills • Early Assessment • Early indicator of student knowledge and skills to inform instruction, supports, and PD • ELA/Literacy • Speaking • Listening Summative assessment for accountability Formative assessment

  47. PARCC Timeline SY 2012-13 First year pilot/field testing and related research and data collection SY 2013-14 Second year pilot/field testing and related research and data collection SY 2014-15 Full administration of PARCC assessments Summer 2015 Set achievement levels, including college-ready performance levels SY 2010-11 Launch and design phase SY 2011-12 Development begins

  48. Update on Georgia and Career Clusters

More Related