1. SGO 2.0: from Compliance to Quality Increasing SGO Quality through Better Assessments and Target Setting

2. Today’s Agenda Overview state evaluation changes Review changes to the SGO process Review the SGO 5-step process Examine the new SGO form Outcome To develop a schema on which to base SGO development conversations that will occur in the next two months. 2

3. Changes to Evaluation 2013-20142014-2015 Student Growth Percentiles (SGP) Teacher Evaluation Weights SGP: 30% SGO: 15% Teacher Practice: 55% SGP: 10% SGO: 20% Teacher Practice: 70% Non SGP Teacher Evaluation Weights SGO: 15% Teacher Practice: 85% SGO: 20% Teacher Practice: 80%

4. Changes to SGO Dates October 31 st : Deadline for SGO submission to administrators. November 15 th : Deadline for administrator approval and teacher upload to Teachscape. February 15 th : Deadline for changes to SGOs (similar to last year). Changes must be approved by the superintendent. 4

5. Step one: Choose/Develop Assessments BEGIN WITH THE END IN MIND Effective teachers begin the year asking themselves: What should my students learn by when? What methods will I use to ensure they learn it? How will I know they have learned it? 5

6. Choose/Develop Assessments High-quality assessments must: Align with standards taught during the SGO instructional period; Align with the rigor of the standards, content, and instruction of the course; Be equally accessible to all students regardless of background knowledge, cultural knowledge, and personal characteristics; and Be administered and scored accurately and consistently. 6

7. Poorly designed assessments do not accurately measure student knowledge and learning. If SGOs are based on low-quality assessments, then the SGO process cannot yield accurate or meaningful results. If SGOs do not yield accurate or meaningful results, they will fail to promote good instruction and improve student learning. SGO Quality Assessment Quality depends upon 7

8. Step 2: Determine Starting Points One of the major points of SGO 2.0 is the use of multiple measures in determining the students’ starting point and setting the growth objectives.

9. Why multiple criteria? Predicting Student Learning Based on a Rough Sense of Where They Begin 9 ? ? ? Expected learning cannot be determined using one data point. Expected learning is better- determined using multiple measures of starting points.

10. What data could be used to get a rough sense of students’ starting points? 10 STUDENT PRIOR YEAR TEST SCORES CURRENT YEAR TEST SCORES MARKERS OF FUTURE SUCCESS (see rubric) PREPAREDNESS GROUP Unit 1Unit 2 Average Score Active Participant (1-4) Attendance (1-4) Academic Independence (1-4) Total Points 1. 2521009798.543310 High 2. 201628372.52437 Medium 3. 1435775662136 Low Prior Year Test Score Current Year Test Score Average Markers of Future Success Preparedness Group 250 – 30085 – 1009-12High 200 – 24970 – 845-8Medium <200<700-4Low Key

11. Assessments for SGOs Information to inform SGOs may include but are not limited to Formal assessments such as: Portfolios Performance Assessments Benchmark Assessments Finals (modified as needed) Program-based Assessments Standardized Tests, e.g. AP 11 Whether locally-developed or commercial, multiple choice or rubric-based, assessments should follow the rules of good assessment design.

12. 1. Current grades 2. Recent test performance 3. Previous year’s scores 4. Important markers of future success 5. Well-constructed and administered, high-quality pre- assessments 12 Information for determining students’ starting points can also be informal.

13. Informal Information can be indicated by the Sample Rubric for Important Markers of Future Success 13 CriterionLevel 4Level 3Level 2Level 1 Active Participant Always prepared Engaged in all of the learning process Mostly prepared Engaged in most of the learning process Sometimes prepared Engaged in some of the learning process Rarely prepared Engaged in little or none of the learning process Academic Independence Consistently demonstrates intellectual curiosity Consistently self- motivated and independent Frequently demonstrates intellectual curiosity Usually self- motivated and independent Sometimes demonstrates intellectual curiosity Sometimes self- motivated and independent Rarely demonstrates intellectual curiosity Rarely or never self- motivated, frequently depends on prompting and/or teacher assistance Class Attendance Never absentRarely absentSometimes absentFrequently absent Rubric for Important Markers of Future Success

14. What data could be used to get a rough sense of students’ starting points? 14 STUDENT PRIOR YEAR TEST SCORES CURRENT YEAR TEST SCORES MARKERS OF FUTURE SUCCESS (see rubric) PREPAREDNESS GROUP Unit 1Unit 2 Average Score Active Participant (1-4) Attendance (1-4) Academic Independence (1-4) Total Points 1. 2521009798.543310 High 2. 201628372.52437 Medium 3. 1435775662136 Low Prior Year Test Score Current Year Test Score Average Markers of Future Success Preparedness Group 250 – 30085 – 1009-12High 200 – 24970 – 845-8Medium <200<700-4Low Key

15. Student ID Prior Test Scores Current Year Test ScoresMarkers of Future Success Preparedness Group NJ ASK 8 Math Unit 1Unit 2 Average Score Participates in Class Completes Retakes Completes Homework Total Points 12301009798.5Yes No2 2202909592.5Yes 3 321195 Yes 3 4241858685.5YesNo 1 5263909291YesNoYes2 6284908587.5YesNoYes2 7199918889.5Yes 3 8201577566NoYesNo1 9144505854No 0 1018258 No 0 11143628372.5Yes No2 12171788380.5NoYesNo1 NJ ASK Math Score Current Year Test Score Average Number of Future Success Markers Preparedness Group Target Score on Summative <200<700 – 1Low70 200 – 24970 – 841 – 2Medium80 250 – 300 85 – 1002 – 3High90 Physics 1 SGO Using Multiple Measures of Starting Points

16. How does this look on the SGO form? 16 NJ ASK Score < 200 200-249 Pre-assessment Below 70%Low Mid Markers of Future Success 0-1 on rubric

17. Now that we have analyzed our multiple sources of data, we can now begin setting our target scores. Step Three: Setting Growth Objectives

18. Previous Year’s Test Score Current Year Test Score Average Markers of Future Success (points) Preparedness Group Target Score on Summative 79 or below< 700-6Low 70 80-8970-847-9Medium 80 90 or above85-10010-12High90 18 Determining Appropriate Target Scores Directors and supervisors, in collaboration with principals, will assist with the setting of target scores. All of this is driven by the data. Target Score on Summative

19. When we create these target scores, we have to remember to be S M A R T !

20. S.M.A.R.T. SGOs are… S… M… A… R… T… Specific Measurable Ambitious/Achievable Relevant/Results-driven Timely

21. Different Approaches to set Goal for Students SGO handout pages 21-24 21

22. Special Education In-class Resource/ Push-in settings: In the co-teaching model, both educators (general education and SE teacher) are responsible for creating the SGOs for the entire class. Pull-Out and Single Subject Replacement Resource: The teacher will develop an SGO for their class. Self-Contained class: Teacher will develop an SGO for their class. Teacher with fewer than 20 students, should set two SGOs as all in-district students will participate in the PARCC Assessments for the 2014-2015SY. 22

23. ESL/Bilingual Education Push-in settings: In the elementary setting, when an ESL teacher provides push-in support in a general ed or content class, an SGO may be shared by both teachers if the SGO is focused on the content of that push-in time (e.g. Writing; Reading). In a co-taught stand-alone class (secondary), an SGO should be shared by both teachers (e.g. Physics ESL; US History I ESL) Pull-Out and Single Subject Replacement: The teacher will develop an SGO for their class (pull-out ESL classes at the elementary level and ESL classes which replace LAL at the secondary level) Bilingual Homeroom (elementary): Teacher will develop an SGO for their class. Teacher with fewer than 20 students, should set two SGOs as all in-district students will participate in the PARCC Assessments for the 2014-2015SY. 23

24. Our district is developing structures to assist teachers with tracking progress, which may include discussing data and effective teaching strategies at… A. Administrative team meetings B. Post-Observation meetings C. Department meetings D. Common planning / Grade-Level (Assessment) Meetings Step 4: Track Progress

25. Description of Attainment Levels Step 5: Review and Score

26. Examining the new SGO Form http://www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/2014- 15StudentGrowthObjectiveForm.pdf 26

27. Two additional resources http://www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/14- 15SGOGuidebook.pdf http://www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/14- 15SGOGuidebook.pdf The state also has a thorough SGO document library on the NJAchieve website. http://www.state.nj.us/education/AchieveNJ/resources/index _sgo.shtml http://www.state.nj.us/education/AchieveNJ/resources/index _sgo.shtml 27 The SGO guidebook has been revised for 2014- 15 school year.

28. Looking Back UnderstandTake Action 1. SGOs are learning goals or key concepts and skills that students can be expected to master in a course based on an approximate sense of where they start. Base learning goals on what you want student to know and do by the end of the SGO period. Get a rough sense of where students begin by using multiple measures of student prior learning (see example) Use pre-assessments only when appropriate. 2. SGO quality is critically on summative assessment* quality. Increase the quality of the SGO summative assessments and develop common assessments where possible. (SGO 2.0 Presentation) 3. SGOs should be a true reflection of the daily practice of effective teachers and of the curriculum and student an educator teaches. (2013-14: Lessons from Educators, section 6) Align critical standards, effective instruction, and high quality assessment in SGOs. Incorporate a significant number of students and portion of curriculum within the SGO(s) (see SGO Quality Rating Rubric) Set differentiated learning goals for students based on their starting points. 4. SGOS should be collaborative – teacher-driven, administrator- supported, and student-centered (as stated in code 6A:10-4.2 (e) 3). Even though administrators are responsible for approving and scoring SGOs, they should encourage teachers to take ownership of the SGO process as a powerful way to improve teacher practice and student achievement.

29. Closing Please complete the Google Docs survey. Thank you for your time, and have an excellent year! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1sIZ- 2hIkxzyIzCTYlQaJwDzM1p1TB_taOTswcTXywWk/viewfor m 29