Teacher Keys Effectiveness System

Teacher Keys Effectiveness System
Overview for Teachers

Implementation Cohorts for the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System
: Cohort 1, Race to the Top Districts: 26, Pilot Cohort 1, Full Implementation Cohort 2, Volunteer Districts: 20; Volunteer IIA Grant Districts: 9; SIG/Priority/Relocation Schools: 21; and Study Districts: 6, Pilot Cohort 1: Full Implementation Cohort 2: Combination Full Implementation and Pilot Cohort 3: New Volunteer Districts: 106, Pilot (current ) Institutions of Higher Education: 20 The Teacher Keys Effectiveness System has been piloted through collaboration between the GaDOE and Georgia school districts through a three-year multi-cohort project. In , 26 local boards of education agreed to partner with GaDOE for the Race to the Top Grant from USEd. From January through May 2012, these 26 districts piloted the Teacher Keys Evaluation System (TKES), now known as the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System. This system establishes a common evaluation system that will allow the state to ensure consistency and comparability across districts, based on a common definition of teacher effectiveness. Cohort I, the Race to the Top Districts make up 40 percent of public school students, 46 percent of Georgia's students in poverty, 53 percent of Georgia’s African American students, 48 percent of Hispanics and 68 percent of the state's lowest achieving schools. During the school year, Cohort 1 was joined by Cohort 2 which was comprised of 20 volunteer districts, 9 districts who received Title IIA grants and 21 schools who because of their designation as a SIG, Priority, or Relocation Grant School piloted Teacher Keys. Cohort 2 had the option last year of a full implementation or a percentage implementation imodel n which only a percentage of teachers or schools participated. But, during the school year, all of Cohort I and all mandated schools fully implemented the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System. This school year, we add Cohort 3. The 106 districts who are participating in Cohort 3 have each submitted a district plan for implementation based on their needs and readiness to pilot. Cohort 1 will continue in full implementation of all components of TKES, Cohort 2 will continue their plans of implementation from We are also happy to have 20 institutions of higher learning who are studying and/or implementing TKES as part of their teacher preparation programs.

House Bill 244 Passed during 2013 legislative session
Mandates use of single, state-wide evaluation system for teachers of record Multiple observations required Student Achievement contributes 50% Contracts must be offered by May 15 We are obviously very happy about the number of districts who have committed to piloting Teacher Keys this year, and we know that the passage of House Bill 244 was a factor for some districts in making this decision. As I am sure most of you are aware, House Bill 244 was passed and signed into law during the 2013 legislative session. We are going to take just a few minutes to highlight some of the changes mandated by the bill. House Bill 244 mandates the use of a single, state-wide evaluation system for all teachers in Georgia, and goes into effect with the school year. Teachers of record are any teachers who provide direct instruction to students for any portion of the school day. The new evaluation system requires multiple observations of teachers rather than the single observation that had been required for GTEP teachers in the formative cycle. Another major change is in relation to how student achievement is considered for evaluations. Currently, Georgia law states that student achievement must be considered as a significant portion of a teacher’s evaluation. House Bill 244 specifies that student achievement will contribute 50% of a teacher’s overall score, but because the law also states that teacher contracts must be offered by May 15, we know that student achievement will continue to be a lagging source of data. For the ultimate calculation, then, student achievement will contribute forward in a teacher’s evaluation. We will discuss this in more detail when we talk specifically about student growth and academic achievement and the calculations for teacher scores.

House Bill 244 Feedback must be provided for all observations within 5 working days Evaluations will yield one of four explicit summative ratings: Exemplary, Proficient, Needs Development and Ineffective Evaluators must be trained and credentialed using an approved program All components of a teacher’s evaluation are confidential As with the current evaluation requirements, House Bill 244 requires that feedback be provided for all observations within 5 working days. We will talk very specifically about what feedback can and should look like as we work through the implementation procedures, but the five day rule is in effect for all observations. At the end of the school year, teachers will receive an overall score that falls into one of four rubric categories: Exemplary, Proficient, Needs Development and Ineffective. Teachers will also receive feedback using these four ratings throughout the course of the year, but it is the final, summative rating that is equated with a teacher’s overall effectiveness score. All evaluators who participate in the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System must go through an approved training program and pass a credentialing assessment following that training. That is our purpose over the next three days. On Wednesday afternoon, each of you will have the opportunity to take the credentialing assessment for A passing score for the assessment is an Many of the activities that you complete during the three days of training will model components of the assessment, so you will be well-prepared by the time we get to that. The assessment is a combination of performance tasks in which you will observe and rate teachers and multiple choice questions. Finally, as we work through each of the components of Teacher Keys, please keep in mind that all components of a teacher’s evaluation are confidential as is the total evaluation for the year. No part of the data collected whether from student surveys of instructional practice, student growth and academic achievement or from observational notes or ratings can be shared.

So, why TKES? Because teachers matter
So, all of this leads us to the question, why the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System? The simple answer is because every classroom should have the most effective teacher possible, and TKES is a system that supports continual improvement and growth and can establish consistency and comparability across the state. Why is that important? It’s important because teachers matter. We know that the single largest factor influencing student success and achievement that we can control within the school is the teacher. We also know that all one million, seven hundred two thousand, seven hundred fifty eight students in the state of Georgia deserve to have an effective teacher in their classrooms. There are 1, 702,758 reasons to have effective teachers and leaders in Georgia.

Primary Purposes Optimize student learning and growth Improve the quality of classroom instruction Support the continuous growth of teachers We have alluded to these, but let’s talk about the primary purposes of the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System. The first of these is to optimize student learning and growth. At the end of the day, this system should provide instructional coaching and support such that student achievement and success are positively affected. As teachers become more and more effective, and the quality of instruction improves in every classroom, this first purpose will be realized. Whether teaching is primarily an art or science has been debated since the beginning of formalized education. Whatever your belief on the mixture of these factors, we know that quality instruction has several observable, coachable characteristics. These behaviors are clearly outlined in the Teacher Keys Performance Standards. These standards outline the major duties and responsibilities of teachers, but they are not a replacement for the things that good teachers already do. The performance standards outline those practices that we know are critical to providing quality instruction, and by clarifying expectations through the use of these standards, quality instructional practices should become more consistent and pervasive. In order to realize these purposes, we need a system that supports the continuous improvement of teachers and provides them with opportunities for reflection and for assistance when necessary. As teachers continue to grow and improve, their classroom practices and the quality of instruction will improve, and as those things happen, student learning and growth will also increase.

Do teachers have an impact on student achievement?
So, how can we define effective teaching and does an effective teacher impact student achievement? We know that there is no single, simple answer, but there are some very clear characteristics and behaviors that contribute to teacher effectiveness.

Which factor has the largest effect on student achievement?
Mixed Ability Grouping 4 Class Size 3 Prior Achievement 2 The Teacher 1 There are many things that we talk about in education as contributing to the difficulties that teachers face, but the truth is that most of the things we talk about are much less significant and have much less potential to affect student outcomes than the development of effective teachers. By far, a teacher has the greatest influence on student learning of all the factors that are within the control of a school. Most certainly, prior student achievement will make a difference, and so will class size; however, class size and the configuration of the classroom--whether it’s homogeneous or heterogeneous--will pale in comparison to the influence of the teacher. Teachers really do matter the most. Study Highlight: Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., & Sanders, W.L. (1997)

Predictors of student achievement gains are a combination of…
Multiple observations (TAPS) Student feedback (Surveys) Prior student achievement gains (Student Growth and Academic Achievement) Source: Kane, Thomas J. and Staiger, Douglas O. “Gathering Feedback for Teaching.” January Advanced teaching degrees, many years of experience, and type of teacher certification are all background prerequisites, but they are not powerful predictors of student success. The components listed here – the use of multiple observations, student feedback, and prior student achievement gains are significant predictors of student achievement. The three components of TKES reflect these measures. Here’s an added bonus—The combined measure outperformed advanced college degrees and years of teaching experience in indicating which teachers had students who reported higher levels of effort and greater enjoyment in class.

(Generates a Teacher Effectiveness Measure ) Surveys of Instructional Practice (Grades 3-5, Grades 6-8, Grades 9-12) Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (Observations and Documentation) Student Growth and Academic Achievement Teachers of Tested Subjects - Student Growth Percentile - Achievement Gap Reduction Teachers of Non-Tested Subjects - DOE-approved, district-developed Student Learning Objectives The TKES is designed to use multiple sources of data to measure the effectiveness of a teacher. Just as listening to varied perspectives give us a broader scope of understanding, we will use the multiple components of TKES to create a fuller picture of a teacher’s effectiveness. We will begin to look at each data source in detail to fully understand how each will inform the overall rating which is called the Teacher Effectiveness Measure or TEM. The Teacher Effectiveness Measure will ultimately yield a rating of Exemplary, Proficient, Needs Development or Ineffective as discussed earlier in relation to HB This rating will be based on where the actual score generated for the TEM falls on a continuum from Exemplary to Ineffective.

(Generates a Teacher Effectiveness Measure ) Surveys of Instructional Practice (Grades 3-5, Grades 6-8, Grades 9-12) Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (Observations and Documentation) Student Growth and Academic Achievement Teachers of Tested Subjects - Student Growth Percentile - Achievement Gap Reduction Teachers of Non-Tested Subjects - DOE-approved, district-developed Student Learning Objectives So, we start with the component that is most familiar to teachers and administrators, the Teacher Assessment on Performance standards. The foundation of TAPS is a clearly defined set of professional responsibilities for teachers. A fair and comprehensive evaluation system provides sufficient detail and accuracy so that both teachers and evaluators (e.g., principal or assistant principal) will reasonably understand the job expectations. One change in this component and previous evaluation requirements is that the TKES is built on multiple observations that occur throughout the year. Ultimate ratings for each standard are based on the consistency with which teachers have performed over time in relation to each standard.

TAPS Domains and Standards
PLANNING 1. Professional Knowledge 2. Instructional Planning INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY 3. Instructional Strategies 4. Differentiated Instruction ASSESSMENT OF AND FOR LEARNING 5. Assessment Strategies 6. Assessment Uses LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 7. Positive Learning Environment 8. Academically Challenging Environment PROFESSIONALISM AND COMMUNICATION Professionalism Communication 5 Domains 10 Standards The performance standards outlined in TAPS are grouped into 5 domains. Each domain consists of 2 standards for a total of 10 standards. These standards outline the major duties and responsibilities of classroom teachers. Many of the domains have a “what I have” and a “what I do with it” standard, but each standard outlines a major element of the teaching process. Domain one, planning, starts with the knowledge that a teacher brings to the classroom. This can be content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of students and child development – any knowledge or understanding that helps the teacher make instructional decisions – that is standard 1, Professional Knowledge. The second planning standard deals with how a teacher translates that knowledge into an actionable plan for instruction.

PLANNING 1. Professional Knowledge 2. Instructional Planning INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY 3. Instructional Strategies 4. Differentiated Instruction ASSESSMENT OF AND FOR LEARNING 5. Assessment Strategies 6. Assessment Uses LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 7. Positive Learning Environment 8. Academically Challenging Environment PROFESSIONALISM AND COMMUNICATION Professionalism Communication 5 Domains 10 Standards Once teachers plan, they deliver instruction. This delivery is the subject of domain 2. Standard 3, instructional strategies, deals with a global approach to instructional delivery. Do you have a model for instruction? If you have worked with Learning Focused Schools and used the EATS model, or if you have used a model for instructional planning, you have established a consistent model for instructional strategies. There is no reason to change language or models with this standard. The heart of this standard centers on the effective use of research based instructional strategies. Do teachers use some method for engaging students prior knowledge, learning or experiences? Do they provide multiple access points to instruction? Do they review and summarize during the course of instruction? Do they allow students to summarize learning at the end of a lesson? Once they have provided appropriate instruction to all students, do teachers adjust instructional practices to meet the individual needs of students? This moves us to Standard 4, Differentiated Instruction. At its most basic level, differentiated instructional practices are those designed to meet the individual needs of students. Although there are many practices that support differentiated instruction, the overall intent of the standard is to ensure that student needs are being met.

PLANNING 1. Professional Knowledge 2. Instructional Planning INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY 3. Instructional Strategies 4. Differentiated Instruction ASSESSMENT OF AND FOR LEARNING 5. Assessment Strategies 6. Assessment Uses LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 7. Positive Learning Environment 8. Academically Challenging Environment PROFESSIONALISM AND COMMUNICATION Professionalism Communication 5 Domains 10 Standards After the delivery of instruction, we move to the Assessment Domain. Again, we have a what I have and what I do with it standard. First, Standard 5 addresses the scope and breadth of classrooms assessments – are there formal and informal checks for understanding? Does the teacher give diagnostic, formative and summative assessments? Then, Standard 6 looks at how the information gained from these assessments is used to drive instruction. Having data and using data are two very different things, and it is often the case that we are not using the massive amounts of data that we collect in the most effective or appropriate ways.

PLANNING 1. Professional Knowledge 2. Instructional Planning INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY 3. Instructional Strategies 4. Differentiated Instruction ASSESSMENT OF AND FOR LEARNING 5. Assessment Strategies 6. Assessment Uses LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 7. Positive Learning Environment 8. Academically Challenging Environment PROFESSIONALISM AND COMMUNICATION Professionalism Communication 5 Domains 10 Standards Next, we look at the environment of a classroom. With Positive Learning Environment, the standard focuses on classroom safety, routines and procedures. Are transitions managed and carried out appropriately? Do students feel safe asking questions and participating in class? Is the classroom conducive to learning? Standard 8 deals with the academic challenge in the classroom. Are all students expected to reach their full potential? Is class time utilized fully and appropriately with rigorous goals and expectations?

PLANNING 1. Professional Knowledge 2. Instructional Planning INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY 3. Instructional Strategies 4. Differentiated Instruction ASSESSMENT OF AND FOR LEARNING 5. Assessment Strategies 6. Assessment Uses LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 7. Positive Learning Environment 8. Academically Challenging Environment PROFESSIONALISM AND COMMUNICATION Professionalism Communication 5 Domains 10 Standards And, the final two standards deal with Professionalism and Communication. These two standards are more broad in scope that the Code of Ethics and GTDRI. Professionalism also includes contribution to the profession and continual growth, and Communication moves beyond the traditional parent contact log. Now, let’s look more closely at one standard to understand the depth of the standards.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PERFORMANCE appraisal rubric
TAPS Main Components DOMAIN performance standard Instructional Delivery Performance Standard 3: Instructional Strategies The teacher promotes student learning by using research-based instructional strategies relevant to the content to engage students in active learning and to facilitate the students’ acquisition of key knowledge and skills. Sample Performance Indicators Examples may include, but are not limited to: The teacher: 3.1 Engages students in active learning and maintains interest. 3.2 Builds upon students’ existing knowledge and skills. 3.3 Reinforces learning goals consistently throughout the lesson. 3.4 Uses a variety of research-based instructional strategies and resources PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PERFORMANCE appraisal rubric Exemplary In addition to meeting the requirements for Proficient… Proficient Proficient is the expected level of performance. Needs Development Ineffective The teacher continually facilitates students’ engagement in metacognitive learning, higher-order thinking skills, and application of learning in current and relevant ways. (Teachers rated as Exemplary continually seek ways to serve as role models or teacher leaders.) The teacher consistently promotes student learning by using research-based instructional strategies relevant to the content to engage students in active learning, and to facilitate the students’ acquisition of key skills. The teacher inconsistently uses research-based instructional strategies. The strategies used are sometimes not appropriate for the content area or for engaging students in active learning or for the acquisition of key skills. The teacher does not use research-based instructional strategies, nor are the instructional strategies relevant to the content area. The strategies do not engage students in active learning or acquisition of key skills. This screen shows each supporting piece for the domains and standards. TAPS uses a three-tiered approach to define the expectations for teacher including the domain, standard and multiple performance indicators for each of the ten standards. Teachers will be rated on the performance standards using performance appraisal rubrics. The performance rubric is a behavioral summary scale that guides evaluators in assessing how well a standard is performed. It states the measure of performance expected of teachers and provides a qualitative description of performance at each level. It is important to note that teachers are evaluated against the standards, not the indicators. Performance indicators are examples of the types of performance that will occur if a standard is being successfully met. In your materials packet, each of you has two laminated cards. The yellow card is your Standards Card. It lists each standard and the performance indicators associated with each standard. While it is likely that you will observe many of the indicators listed as you visit classrooms, again, these are just samples of things you may see. There may also be things that you see in observations that are appropriate for the standard that are not listed in the performance indicators. Be sure always to go the standard itself when you begin to rate a teacher’s performance. When rating a teacher’s performance, each standard has a performance appraisal rubric that provides a rating from Exemplary to Ineffective. This is your blue laminated card. Each standard has a unique performance appraisal rubric, but there are many commonalities between them. The first of these is that proficient is always the expected level of practice. In fact, for all performance appraisal rubrics, the language of the standard is also the language used to describe Proficient practice. Let’s look more closely at the rubric for standard 3. The standard reads “the teacher promotes student learning by using research-based instructional strategies relevant to the content to engage students in active learning and to facilitate the students’ acquisition of key knowledge and skills.” Look now at the description for proficient.

Totality of Evidence and Consistency of Practice
Rating Performance Totality of Evidence and Consistency of Practice Performance Standard 3: Instructional Strategies Exemplary In addition to meeting the requirements for Proficient… Proficient Proficient is the expected level of performance. Needs Development Ineffective The teacher continually facilitates students' engagement in metacognitive learning, higher-order thinking skills, and application of learning in current and relevant ways.(Teachers rated as Exemplary continually seek ways to serve as role models or teacher leaders.) The teacher consistently promotes student learning by using research-based instructional strategies relevant to the content to engage students in active learning, and to facilitate the students' acquisition of key skills. The teacher inconsistently uses research-based instructional strategies. The strategies used are sometimes not appropriate for the content area or for engaging students in active learning or for the acquisition of key skills. The teacher does not use research-based instructional strategies, nor are the instructional strategies relevant to the content area. The strategies do not engage students in active learning or acquisition of key skills. Look again at the language of the standard. Notice the match between the two, and also note the use of the word consistently. You will find the use of this word in the proficient descriptions in each of the performance appraisal rubrics. “Proficient” should describe very good classroom teachers who consistently meet job expectations. Teachers who perform at the proficient level are consistently able to recognize a need and meet that need in the classroom. Keep in mind as we look at the other descriptors and as you begin to analyze the standards more fully that the description provided in the Proficient level of the performance appraisal rubric is the actual performance standard, thus Proficient is the expected level of performance. As we look at the other possible ratings, think about the descriptors in relation to each other and to the standard itself. The performance appraisal rubric provides a clearly delineated step-wise progression, moving from highest to lowest levels of performance, and each level is intended to be qualitatively superior to all lower levels.

TAPS Process Overview Orientation & Familiarization Self-Assessment
Pre-Evaluation Conference Observation and Collection of Evidence Formative Assessment Mid-Year Evaluation Conference Summative Assessment Summative Evaluation Conference This graphic shows an overview of the TAPS Process. There are many resources available to help you with each of these, and we will talk about those more specifically as we look closely at each step in the process. You begin the year with an orientation. Just as is the case now, all teachers must be oriented to the system with which they will be evaluated. Following the orientation, familiarization activities will begin. Familiarization is an ongoing part of the TAAPS process, and it merely begins here. Providing professional learning opportunities for staff on the standards and providing opportunities for discussion on expectations related to standards will be critical for you and your staff. The activity that we completed before lunch would be an example of an appropriate familiarization activity to modify for your staff. After the orientation, teachers will complete a self-assessment based on all ten standards. They will share that self-assessment with their evaluator or evaluators. The results of those self-assessments provide part of the data for the pre-evaluation conference. This is the first of three required conferences in the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System. The pre-evaluation conference can be held individually or in groups based on the needs of your staff. Following the pre-evaluation conference, the observation and collection of evidence phase begins. Notice on the graphic that this step works recursively with the next which is the formative assessment step. Completing observations and providing feedback will go on throughout the remainder of the school year. Again, specific guidelines for these requirements will be discussed fully in the next segment. During this process, usually in December or January, the second required conference, the mid-year evaluation conference, is held. This conference may also be held with individuals or in groups. At the end of the year, after the collection and review of all relevant documentation – both from observations and other types of evidence, evaluators will complete a summative assessment for each teacher and will discuss that assessment in the summative evaluation conference. This final conference must be held individually with each teacher. In thinking through the steps for this process, it may seem that there is a lot to manage and keep track of. To assist you with data collection and management, all phases and steps of the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System will be maintained and reviewed electronically in the TLE Electronic Platform.

(Generates a Teacher Effectiveness Measure ) Surveys of Instructional Practice (Grades 3-5, Grades 6-8, Grades 9-12) Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (Observations and Documentation) Student Growth and Academic Achievement Teachers of Tested Subjects - Student Growth Percentile - Achievement Gap Reduction Teachers of Non-Tested Subjects - DOE-approved, district-developed Student Learning Objectives The second component of the Teacher Keys Evaluation System consists of student surveys of instructional practice. Surveys of Instructional Practice will be used as an additional source of documentation to inform TAPS formative and summative ratings. We have just talked at great length about the formative ratings, but did not include survey data. That is because at the time that we completed the formative assessments we did not have data from the surveys of instructional practice. We will now look at how that piece fits into our developing puzzle. This afternoon, we are only going to spend a short amount of time with surveys. In fact, we are only going to talk about how they are used to complete the summative assessment because of the limited amount of time that we have remaining this afternoon. We will begin tomorrow’s session by finishing the section on Surveys of Instructional Practice, so do not leave today thinking that you have all of the information on this component.

Why do Student Surveys Inform TAPS?
Observations, used alone, are narrow in scope and inadequate to capture the complexities of teaching . Evaluations of teachers must include multiple data sources. Students provide perceptions of the routine practices within a classroom. Student surveys provide information to evaluators that may not be accurately obtained during observation or other types of documentation. This is because students are in a teacher’s classroom every day and can truly help to speak to the consistency with which certain types of behaviors or practices occur. Student surveys provide information about their perceptions of how a teacher is performing. Often, evaluation systems rely solely on observation for teacher evaluation, but we know that observations only provide a snapshot of a teachers’ overall work. There are many facets to a teachers’ job, and observations alone simply cannot capture the complexity of teaching. For an evaluation system to accurately reflect a teacher’s performance, it must use multiple data sources. The critical component of the Student Surveys of Instructional Practice is that they allow for a data source that reveals the routine, consistently practiced aspects of a teacher’s instructional practices as seen from the most important view – the students.

Surveys of Instructional Practice
Surveys of Instructional Practice provide student perception data as an additional source of documentation of teacher performance for four of the ten performance standards within the TAPS component of the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System. The survey items that are used for the surveys of instructional practice ask students to respond to statements for which students have direct knowledge. For that reason, only four of the ten standards are affected by this component. There are three versions of the surveys – one for grades 3-5, one for grades 6-8, and one for grades Each of the different versions is written using language appropriate for that age of students. The results of surveys of instructional practice will be considered by the evaluator as he or she looks at the full scope of evidence for the four standards impacted by the surveys. We will talk more about the details of the administration of the surveys and the design of the surveys tomorrow, but for today, we are only going to discuss how the survey results impact the formative and summative assessments.

Surveys of Instructional Practice
Survey questions will be aligned with the following standards that students directly experience: Standard 3. Instructional Strategies Standard 4. Differentiated Instruction Standard 7. Positive Learning Environment Standard 8. Academically Challenging Environment Students will be asked to complete survey items for standards 3, 4, 7 and 8. Again, these are the standards for which students have direct knowledge and experience. We would not ask students questions regarding how a teacher plans because students are not able to appropriately determine how or even if a teacher plans for a lesson.

Grades 9-12 Survey Sample Strongly Agree Disagree My teacher ensures the rules and procedures are followed in class. 3 2 1 My teacher encourages me to try new things, even when they are difficult. Here are two sample survey items for a 9-12 survey. Notice that students can respond to this survey with one of four responses: Strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree, and each of these is associated with a point value. Again, we will have a chance to look more closely at the statements themselves tomorrow, this example is only for illustration. Once the appropriate number of surveys have been completed, data becomes available to the site administrator in the form of a mean score. Abbreviated Sample Form for Training Purposes

(Generates a Teacher Effectiveness Measure ) Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (Observations and Documentation) Surveys of Instructional Practice (Grades 3-5, Grades 6-8, Grades 9-12) Student Growth and Academic Achievement Teachers of Tested Subjects - Student Growth Percentile - Achievement Gap Reduction Classrooms are complex places, and measuring student learning can be challenging due to unique grade level and subject characteristics. However, student learning is the ultimate measure of the success of a teacher and an instructional leader. The TAPS component of the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System allows teachers to demonstrate their skills and provide information on how they plan and deliver instruction, and the Student Growth and Academic Achievement Component provides a means of measuring their students’ responses to those practices. For this reason, Student Growth and Academic Achievement is a vital component of the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System. The goal of this component is to examine student growth and academic achievement by using assessments and data which guide teachers as they design and implement instruction. A variety of information is used to determine student growth targets and to measure student growth throughout the span of our students’ academic careers including standardized tests and other assessment measures. For teachers of tested subjects, this component consists of a student growth percentile measure which is based on current and previous standardized tests. Tested subjects include reading, English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies for grades 4-8 and all high school courses for which there is an End-of-Course Test (EOCT). Non-tested subjects include all state-funded courses not listed as tested subjects. In Georgia, approximately 70-75% of all teachers teach at least one non-tested subject for at least some portion of the instructional day. For teachers of non-tested subjects, this component consists of a Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE)-approved Student Learning Objectives (SLO) which utilizes district-identified achievement growth measures. Teachers of Non-Tested Subjects - DOE-approved, district-developed Student Learning Objectives

(Generates a Teacher Effectiveness Measure ) Surveys of Instructional Practice (Grades 3-5, Grades 6-8, Grades 9-12) Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (Observations and Documentation) Student Growth and Academic Achievement Teachers of Tested Subjects - Student Growth Percentile - Achievement Gap Reduction Teachers of Non-Tested Subjects - DOE-approved, district-developed Student Learning Objectives Now, let’s look at the measures. We are going to talk first about the how teachers of tested subjects will be evaluated for the Student Growth component of TKES. Again, teachers of tested subjects include any teacher whose students are assessed with a CRCT or an EOCT. This means that all academic teachers in grades 4-8 and high school teachers who teach one of the eight EOCT assessed subjects. There are a very limited number of exceptions to this which will be discussed in this section as we talk about how Student Growth Percentiles are calculated and measured.

Growth and Achievement
Measures a student’s progress between two points in time. Compares a student’s performance to his/her own prior performance. Achievement Measures a student’s performance at a single point of time. Compares a student’s performance to a standard. A more complete picture of student learning. In education, the words “achievement” and “progress” are often used interchangeably. However, their meanings are very different. It is important for us to understand the difference between these two and the way that each is used in helping to characterize teacher effectiveness. * Trainers may want to refer back to this slide throughout this section of the training if groups need further clarification and reminders of the difference between growth and achievement. Achievement is measured by students’ performance at a single point in time and seeks to show how well those students perform against a standard or criterion. Achievement has typically been measured by students’ performance on state tests—how well students perform in relation to state standards and the “bar” established for proficiency. In terms of performance, districts, schools and teachers have been judged almost exclusively by the number of students who do not meet, meet, or exceed the levels of proficiency on state tests. This rating system makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine a particular teacher’s impact on student growth or lack of growth from year to year because of different standards and different proficiency levels year to year. Growth is measured by how much “gain” students make over time (i.e., year-to-year, semester-to-semester, etc.). One way to think of academic progress is in terms of a child’s growth chart. A growth chart shows a child’s height at age two, three, etc. These data points can be plotted to display that child’s physical growth over a specific period of time. Similarly, if a student’s math achievement level is measured annually using state achievement or nationally normed tests, the student’s “growth pattern” in math can be plotted as it was for height. A growth-based measurement system does not measure a child against a proficiency rate. Rather, this type of system measures the child’s rate or amount of growth based on his or her beginning point over a specified amount of time, and a score in isolation cannot provide this type of information. The achievement score must be put into perspective with other scores and historical data.

Two Measures of Growth Tested Subjects Non-Tested Subjects
Utilize Student Growth Percentiles Generated based on CRCT and EOCT performance Will be calculated at the state level Non-Tested Subjects Utilize Student Learning Objectives Generated based on performance on pre- and post-assessment measures Will be calculated at the district level for all state funded courses without a standardized test As we said earlier, we will deal with two types of subjects for student growth and academic achievement: tested and non-tested subjects. Tested Subjects are those for which a state-mandated standardized test is in place. In Georgia, that means that all subjects that have CRCTs or EOCTs are considered tested subjects. The only exception to this is 3rd grade. This is because in order to use the achievement score for a growth measure, there must be a prior achievement score, and since 3rd grade is the first time students are required to test, there is no previous test. These subjects will utilize a student growth percentile. That percentile will be generated at the state level based on performance on the CRCT and EOCT, and it will be reported in the fall following the current testing year. This is because all testing must be complete before percentiles can be generated. Teachers can access their SGPs through the State Longitudinal Data System because they will automatically link to the teacher of record. In fact, all teachers who have access to SLDS can currently access this information for the last two years of courses they have taught. Teachers of non-tested subjects – who teach approximately 75% of all courses taught in the state – will utilize student learning objectives or SLOs to measure student growth. For this measure, districts will make decisions on appropriate measures for pre- and post-assessments based on course standards. Once the pre-assessment measure is given, districts will use that data to set appropriate growth targets for all students in the district. Those targets will be sent to the DOE for approval. Once the post- assessment is administered, district and school leaders will evaluate a teacher’s performance using those targets and determine a rating for student growth.

Growth Projections and Targets
Exceeds Meets Does Not Meet High Exceeds Target Typical Meets Target Low In this growth projection, the purple arrow points to the score that the student would have made on this year’s standardized test. Let’s say that test was a 5th grade CRCT. Notice that the bubble is above the “Does Not Meet” line, so the student passed the CRCT this year. If the meets line is 800 and the Exceeds line is 850, this student probably made about an The colored fan shows the distribution of every possible growth percentile that the student could make the next year – from first to ninety-ninth. Notice that if this student maintains the same score next year, he or she will have shown typical growth. Physically show participants how the dot would stay in the green. If the student’s score goes down, he or she could still pass the test but only show low level growth. On the other end of growth, a student whose previous achievement was barely passing would have to show a very high level of growth in order to exceed on the next standardized test. In essence, this projection attempts to quantify what we already know. Students who begin the year with a lower level of previous achievement will have to grow more than most students in the class if they are going to exceed on the next achievement test. This Year Future

SGPs for Individual Students
Each student obtains a growth percentile, which indicates how his or her current achievement compares with that of his or her academic peers Academic peers are other students statewide with a similar score history Priors are the historical assessment scores used to model growth Growth percentiles range from 1 to 99 Lower percentiles indicate lower academic growth and higher percentiles indicate higher academic growth Let’s put that back into perspective, then. Now, when a student takes a standardized test, that score will be compared against all of that student’s academically similar peer group across the state. This peer group is built over the previous two years of score history, but it is not a list of students. All of the student scores become groups for the model. For all students, no matter what their previous score history, all levels of growth are possible. Even students who have shown high levels of achievement are able to earn a percentile score of 99.

(Generates a Teacher Effectiveness Measure ) Surveys of Instructional Practice (Grades 3-5, Grades 6-8, Grades 9-12) Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (Observations and Documentation) Student Growth and Academic Achievement Teachers of Tested Subjects - Student Growth Percentile - Achievement Gap Reduction Teachers of Non-Tested Subjects - DOE-approved, district-developed Student Learning Objectives Now, let’s talk about non-tested subjects. Non-tested subjects include all courses not listed as tested subjects. Approximately 70-75% of all courses are non-tested subjects, and most teachers spend at least some portion of the instructional day in a non-tested subject. For teachers of non-tested subjects, this component consists of the district developed and Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE)-approved Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) utilizing district-identified achievement growth measures.

What Is an SLO? An SLO is a measurable, long-term academic goal set to determine student growth. Student learning objectives demonstrate a teacher’s impact on student learning. Two data points using district-determined pre-and post-assessment SMART goal criteria So those are the purposes of SLOs, but what are they? An SLO is a measurable, long-tem academic goal set to determine student growth. By looking at a student’s entry level knowledge and ability in relation to the content standards of a course and then assessing that student’s exit level of knowledge and ability, we can determine how much a student learned – or grew – in relation to those standards. This is a direct reflection of the instruction and the teacher’s impact on student learning. SLOs are based on two data points which are based on a pre- and a post-assessment that is specific to a course. These pre- and post- assessments are district determined, but they must conform to very specific criteria and be directly tied to the standards for the course. The SLO itself is written as a SMART goal. Many of you are already familiar with writing SMART goals, and you will know that a SMART goal is specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound.

High School Social Studies SLO
From September 2013 to May 2014, 100% of American Government and Civics students will demonstrate growth from the pre-assessment to the post-assessment as measured by Down County’s locally developed measures as follows: The minimum expectation for individual student growth is based on the formula which requires students to grow by increasing his/her score by 60% of his/her potential growth. Pre-assessment score + (100 – pre-assessment score) / x .6 = Post-assessment Target Score. Students scoring more than 10 points higher than their target would be considered exceeding their target. Example using 40 on a pre-assessment: 40 + (100-40) x .6 40 + (60) x .6 76 is the target for post-assessment *A score of 87 denotes exceeding Let’s take a look at an example of an SLO This is an example of an SLO from a high school social studies course. In the next few slides we are going to break down the SMART criteria we discussed earlier. If you follow along with the slides, you will notice specific portions of the SLO bolded for this discussion.

QUESTIONS, Comments Concerns
about the process? So far we have talked about the need for effective teachers and described some of the factors that impact student achievement. We are now going to take a close look at the components of the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System and delve into the evaluation process. Before we go on, are there any questions?

The Electronic Platform

Resources gadoe.org Electronic Platform Implementation Guide
Quick Guides

Teacher Keys Effectiveness System

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Teacher Keys Effectiveness System"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Teacher Keys Effectiveness System

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Teacher Keys Effectiveness System"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback