Educator Effectiveness

1. Educator Effectiveness What is our message about using Student Performance Measures in understanding Teacher Effectiveness? January 7, 2011

2. Context • U.S. Department of Education • RTT • SIG • TIF • Insert language • SB 191 in Colorado • Washington, DC Impact System • Ultimately, we will see Teacher and Principal evaluation policy changes within the next three months

3. Building the Message • The opportunity: You have a meeting with a legislator who serves on an education committee What do they need to know from our perspective? • The move from achievement scores to understanding a student’s growth is important, and there is more we can do • We support getting rid of ineffective teachers • We have a better and more fair way • Fair, transparent evaluation systems • Peer Review and Assistance • Charlotte Danielson framework

4. Building the Message • Researchers agree that difficulties arise when too much emphasis is placed on student performance data (see background information). Some difficulties include: • Over 60% of teachers teach classes that do not have a state test affiliated with their classes. • Proficiency does not include low- and high-performers • Statistical misidentification of effective teachers • The influence of student background on learning • Not reliable enough to make high stakes decisions

5. Policy Makers • How best to approach them? • Remember: You are the expert • Legislators are attracted to “easy” answers • Be deferential because they want to find the best answer for them

6. Defining Teacher Effectiveness • Current: Observation Process (Inputs) • Principal Observations • Peer Assistance and Review • Danielson Framework • Domain 1: Planning and Preparation • Domain 2: The Classroom Environment • Domain 3: Instruction • Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities • New: Student Performance Components (Outputs)

7. Student Performance • Longitudinal Measures (State) • Student Growth • A student’s growth percentile describes how normal a students growth is by examining their current achievement relative to their “academic peers” who are students with the same starting point demonstrating identical prior achievement. That is, a student growth percentile examines the current achievement of a student relative to other students who have, in the past, “walked the same achievement path.” • This is the definition provided by Damien Betebenner of the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment (NCIEA). He was a key architect of the Colorado Growth Model.

8. Achievement proficiency labels • Status: Unsatisfactory, Partially Proficient, Proficient, Advanced • “Catching up” means if the growth by the student per year will result in proficiency in three years. • “Keeping up” means that a student, who is already proficient or advanced, is growing from year to year at a rate that will keep him/her in the proficient or advanced category. • “Moving up” means a student who was proficient has grown sufficiently to be regarded as advanced.

9. Value Added Measures • Define Value added models depend on student growth for their calculation and is an attempt to shift the focus from student performance to teacher performance. This is accomplished by taking the annual student growth of all of the students of a given teacher in one subject or grade and averaging these growth scores. This result is then compared against a norm for that particular group of students known as academic peers. If there is comparable growth or above average growth, then a teacher is said to “add value” to a student’s growth. • Where are they used? The initial model was constructed by William Sanders in Tennessee. Now a variation of his model is being used in Los Angeles, New York and numerous other districts.

10. Student Performance • Short-term Measures • Student Growth Objectives (pre- and post-test within one year) (District) • Benchmark Assessments (District, School) • Teacher assessments (Teacher)

11. Talk about Inputs Differently? • Principal and/or peer observation(s) to gather information on research-based techniques such as wait-time or student v. teacher talk time • Evidence of professional responsibilities

12. What are the Possible Outputs? • Attainment of Student Learning/Growth Objectives based on student performance data • Student growth data from standardized tests • Student growth data from district pre- and post- tests (benchmark tests/formative assessments) • Student portfolios • Teacher artifacts such as… • Reflections on practice: • Where I am in my practice • Where my students are • What do my students need? • How I can improve?

13. Keep the Message Simple • The current way of thinking about teacher evaluation is limited. • State test data is a lagging indicator, teachers cannot use the data in real-time to change their practice. • Multiple measures give teachers real-time data to enable students to grow to their fullest potential.