1. www.engageNY.org 1 New York State Education Department Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation August 2012

2. www.engageNY.org 2 2 By the End of This Presentation….  You should be able to: –Explain how growth ratings (HEDI) and scores will be obtained from educator overall MGPs and confidence ranges based on 2011-12 State-provided growth measures

3. www.engageNY.org 3 3 Evaluating Educator Effectiveness 2011-12 Student growth on state assessments (state- provided) Student learning objectives Growth 20% Student growth or achievement Options selected through collective bargaining Locally Selected Measures 20% Rubrics Sources of evidence: observations, visits, surveys, etc. Other Measures 60%

4. www.engageNY.org 4 4 Key Points about NYS Growth Measures –We are measuring student growth and not achievement  Allow teachers to achieve high ratings regardless of incoming levels of achievement of their students –We are measuring growth compared to similar students  Similar students: Up to three years of the same prior achievement, three student-level characteristics (economic disadvantage, SWD, and ELL status) Every educator has a fair chance to demonstrate effectiveness on these measures regardless of the composition of his/her class or school.

5. www.engageNY.org 5 5 Review of Terms  SGP (student growth percentile): –the result of a statistical model that calculates each student’s change in achievement between two or more points in time on a State assessment or other comparable measure and compares each student’s performance to that of similarly achieving students  Similar students: –students with the similar prior test scores,(up to three years), and ELL, SWD, and economic disadvantage status  Unadjusted and adjusted MGP (mean growth percentile): –the average of the student growth percentiles attributed to a given educator –For evaluation purposes, the overall adjusted MGP is used. This is the MGP that includes all a teacher or principal’s students and takes into account student demographics.

6. www.engageNY.org 6 6 MGPs and Statistical Confidence 87 Confidence Range Upper Limit Lower Limit MGP NYSED will provide a 95% confidence range, meaning we can be 95% confident that an educator’s “true” MGP lies within that range. Upper and lower limits of MGPs will also be provided. An educator’s confidence range depends on a number of factors, including the number of student scores included in his or her MGP and the variability of student performance in the classroom.

7. www.engageNY.org 7 7 Growth Ratings and Score Ranges 2011-12 Growth RatingDescriptionGrowth Score Range (2011–12) Highly Effective Well above state average for similar students 18–20 EffectiveResults meet state average for similar students 9–17 DevelopingBelow state average for similar students 3–8 IneffectiveWell below state average for similar students 0–2 The growth scores and ratings are based on an educator’s combined MGP.

8. www.engageNY.org 8 8 HEDI Classification Approach: Teachers and Principals  Highly Effective (Well Above Average) requires: –An educator’s MGP is greater than 1.5 standard deviations above the State mean. –For 2011-12 this means MGP’s greater than or equal to 69 for teachers.  Effective (Average) requires: –An educator’s MGP is between 1 standard deviation below the State mean and 1.5 standard deviations above the State mean. –For 2011-12, MGPs of 42 through 68 for teachers.  Developing (Below Average) requires: –An educator’s MGP is between 1 and 1.5 standard deviations below the State mean. –For 2011-12, MGPs of 36 through 41 for teachers.  Ineffective (Well Below Average) requires: –An educator’s MGP is more than 1.5 standard deviations below the State mean. –For 2011-12 this means MGPs less than or equal to 35 for teachers.

9. www.engageNY.org 9 9 From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Teachers Rules on last slide result in these HEDI criteria for 2011-12 Yes No Is your MGP ≥ 69? Is your Lower Limit > Mean of 52? Highly Effective: Results are well above state average for similar students Is your MGP ≤ 35? Is your Upper Limit < 44? Ineffective: Results are well below state average for similar students Developing: Results are below state average for similar students No Effective: Results equal state average for similar students Mean Growth Percentile Confidence RangeHEDI Rating Is your MGP 42-68? Any Confidence Range Yes No Is your MGP 36-41? Is your Upper Limit < Mean of 52? Yes No

10. www.engageNY.org 10 www.engageNY.org 10 From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Principals For principals the rules lead to these HEDI criteria for 2011-12 Yes No Is your MGP ≥ 61? Is your Lower Limit > Mean of 51? Highly Effective: Results are well above state average for similar students Is your MGP ≤ 41? Is your Upper Limit < 46? Ineffective: Results are well below state average for similar students Developing: Results are below state average for similar students No Effective: Results equal state average for similar students Mean Growth Percentile Confidence RangeHEDI Rating Is your MGP 45-60? Any Confidence Range Yes No Is your MGP 41.5-44? Is your Upper Limit < Mean of 51? Yes No

11. www.engageNY.org 11 www.engageNY.org 11 Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings: (Another Way) (2011-12 cut scores) MGP 1 MGP 99 MGP Below Average (41) Well Below Average (35) Average (52) Upper limit CR for Ineffective (44) Upper limit CR for Ineffective (44) Well Above Average (69)

12. www.engageNY.org 12 www.engageNY.org 12 Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings: (2011-12 cut scores) MGP 1 MGP 99 Below Average (41) Well Below Average (35) Average (52) Upper limit CR for Ineffective (44) Upper limit CR for Ineffective (44) Well Above Average (69) MGP Ineffective MGP Highly Effective

13. www.engageNY.org 13 www.engageNY.org 13 Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings (2011-12 cut scores) MGP 1 MGP 99 Below Average (41) Well Below Average (35) Average (52) Upper CI for Ineffective (44) Upper CI for Ineffective (44) Well Above Average (69) MGP Developing Effective MGP Developing MGP Effective MGP Ineffective MGP Highly Effective MGP

14. www.engageNY.org 14 www.engageNY.org 14 NYS Growth Subcomponent Results for 2011-12: Teachers Rating & Points (2011–12 ) Number of Teacher MGPs Percent of Teacher MGPs Highly Effective 18–20 22067% Effective 9–17 25,57877% Developing 3–8 334110% Ineffective 0–2 20046% Total 33,129

15. www.engageNY.org 15 www.engageNY.org 15 NYS results for 2011-12: Principals Rating & Points (2011–12 ) Number of Principal MGPs Percent of Principal MGPs Highly Effective 18–20 2236% Effective 9–17 282179% Developing 3–8 2698% Ineffective 0–2 2437% Total 3556

16. www.engageNY.org 16 www.engageNY.org 16 Assignment of Points with HEDI Category HEDI Points Min MGP Max MGP N of Teachers 0328660 12932651 23335693 32935241 43637826 538 495 639 535 740 561 841 683 936442661 1045462001 1147493376 1250512432 1352543648 1455562415 1557593144 1660622624 1763683277 186970662 197173666 207496878 HEDI Points Min MGP Max MGP N of Schools 01636.571 1373975 239.54197 334.54122 441.54265 542.5 40 643 37 743.5 41 844 64 941.546270 1046.548350 1148.549209 1249.550.5328 135152313 1452.553.5324 155455316 1655.557353 1757.563.5358 186161.565 19626370 2063.57488 Point value of 3 includes educators with MGPs in the Ineffective category but CRs above 44 (for teachers) and above 46 (for principals) Point value of 9 includes educators with MGPs in the Developing category but CRs above state average Point value of 17 Includes educators with MGPs in the Highly Effective category but CRs below state average Teachers Principals

17. www.engageNY.org 17 www.engageNY.org 17