The SCPS Professional Growth System Decision Rules for Standard 7 and the Summative Evaluation NOTES: (Approx time: 60 minutes) In this session, we will focus on the decision rules for Standard 7 and the summative evaluation. SESSION 3 10.10.12 C. Quinn 10.10.12

Expected Outcomes of Session 3 Teachers will become familiar with the decision rules for Standard 7. Teachers will becomes familiar with how the overall summative rating is determined. NOTES: These are the expected outcomes of this session.

Use Multiple Data Sources Student Progress Informal Observations Formal Observation Student Surveys Self Evaluation Documentation Logs Other NOTES: This graphic presents the multiple data sources used in determining teacher effectiveness.

Student Academic Progress Standard 7 Student Progress Student progress goal setting (SMART goals) Student growth percentile (SGP) Other measures of student progress NOTES: This session will first look at how the rating for Standard 7 is determined. Just as for the other performance standards, multiple data sources will be used including achievement of SMART goals, SGP’s, and other measures of student progress.

Standard 7 and Multiple Data Sources SMART Goals & Other Measures of Student Progress 20% SGP’s SMART Goals & Other Measures of Student Progress 40% NOTES: The Guidelines provide guidance on academic progress measures to be used in the teacher evaluation process. The Guidelines recommend that 40% of the summative evaluation be based on student academic progress. For teachers of grades 4-8 Reading and Math and Algebra I, 20% of their total evaluation will be based on Student Growth Percentiles; and the other 20% will be based on achievement of the SMART goal and other supporting evidences of student progress. For teachers (and other licensed professionals) without Student Growth Percentiles; 40% will be based on achievement of the SMART goal and other supporting evidences of student progress. The Virginia Department of Education encourages the use of multiple measures in making summative decisions. Teachers of grades 4-8 Math and Reading and Algebra I for Whom Student Growth Percentiles Are Available Teachers for Whom Student Growth Percentiles are Not Available

Decision Rules for Standard 7 NOTES: Now, let’s discuss the decision rules for Standard 7. In other words, how is the rating for Standard 7 determined?

What is student progress goal setting? Step 4: Monitor student progress through on-going formative assessment Step 3: Create and implement teaching and learning strategies Step 5: Determine whether the students achieved the goal Step 2: Create specific learning goals based on pre- assessment Step 1: Determine needs NOTES: First, let’s review the 5 step student progress goal setting process. Student achievement goal setting involves a multi-step process. Baseline performance is established by reviewing and analyzing data. Baseline data can be reviewed individually, or in a collaborative manner with other teachers. For example, a grade level may review the data. Then, based on baseline data, the teacher decides to focus attention on student improvement. Each teacher creates his or her own goal based on the performance of the students in his or her classroom, the goal areas can be decided at the school, grade level, or department levels. Then, the teacher sets an attainable goal, meaning that the goal is within reach and yet is not too easy. For the rubrics used to determine the rating for Standard 7, 75 to 80% is the expected level of performance to be rated “Effective.” The professional then develops strategies that would support goal attainment. Strategies are critical to the goal setting process as they provide the means to the end, which is increased student achievement or program progress. Strategies will vary from class to class due to differences in age levels, subject areas, etc. Team planning will make strategies similar, but student are not at the same level across classrooms. So, the teacher must customize the goal to fit the needs of his/her students. The strategies are then implemented and student/program progress is monitored. At the end of the year, data is analyzed to determine whether the goal was attained.

GOAL SETTING FOR STUDENT PROGRESS FORM Professional’s Name: Barry Smart (J) Worksite Einstein High School Job Title: English Teacher School Year 2012-13 I. Setting (Describe the population and special learning circumstances) I teach two classes of grade 10 English students. I have a total of 57 students. Twenty-nine percent of my students qualify for services and have IEPs. II. Content/Subject/Field Area I will focus on expository and persuasive essay writing. Last year only 35% of my students scored proficient on the essay portion of the state writing test. III. Baseline Data (What does the current data show?) I administered both an expository writing prompt and a persuasive writing prompt and scored it using a 6-point rubric in which a score of 4 is proficient. The data show that 28% of my students scored 4 points or better on the expository writing sample and 20% of my students scored 4 points or better on the persuasive writing sample.  Data attached IV. Goal Statement (Describe what you want learners/program to accomplish) For the current school year, 100% of my students will make measurable progress on both expository writing and persuasive writing. By the end of the school year, 75% of my students will score 4 points or better on the expository writing sample and 75% of my students will score 4 points or better on the persuasive writing sample. V. Means for Attaining Goal (Activities used to accomplish the goal) Strategy Measurable By Target Date Use modified pacing to attend to student needs Copies of modified pacing September– May Use frequent formative assessment with students to provide feedback and modify instruction. Lesson Plans Copies of teacher-made formative assessments September – May Incorporate focused instruction in key content areas as prescribed by the State Standards NOTES: As you remember from Session 2, Mr. Smart set the SMART goal based on his pre-assessment data. This goal setting form should be used for each SMART goal.

Step 5: Determining goal attainment Mr. Smart’s Goal Statement For the school year, all of my students will make measurable progress on both expository writing and persuasive writing. By the end of the school year, 75% of my students will score 4 points or better on the expository writing sample and 75% of my students will score 4 points or better on the persuasive writing sample. Baseline, Mid, and Year End Data Percentage of Students with 4’s or Better on 6 Point Writing Rubric NOTES: In Session 2, we looked at the student achievement results of Mr. Smart. He administered an expository writing prompt and a persuasive writing prompt at the end of the year. He used different writing prompts but used the same rubric to evaluate the students’ writing. The data indicated that 28% of students scored 4 points or better on the baseline expository writing assessment. At the mid-year, 32% of students scored 4 points or better on the expository writing assessment. This represents a 4% increase in student performance. By the end of the year, 74% of Mr. Smart’s students scored 4 points or better on the expository writing assessment. The data also indicated that 20% of students scored 4 points or better on the baseline persuasive writing assessment. At the mid-year, 30% of students scored 4 points or better on the persuasive writing assessment. This represents a 10% increase in student performance. By the end of the year, 69% of Mr. Smart’s students scored 4 points or better on the persuasive writing assessment. Even though he did not reach his goal, should he be rated less than effective? Let’s look at the data, and then review a decision rules scoring rubric. Base Mid-Year Year-End line

Step 5: Determining goal attainment Number and Percent of Students Earning Each Score Point on the Essays Unscoreable 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expository – Baseline (5%) 7 (12%) 12 (21%) 19 (33%) 8 (14%) (9%) Expository – End of Year* (0%) (2%) (7%) 10 (18%) 31 (54%) (11%) Persuasive – Baseline (4%) 9 (16%) 14 (25%) 21 (37%) Persuasive – End of Year* 11 (19%) 23 (40%) 74% NOTES: With 74% and 69% of the students scoring 4 or better, Mr. Smart did not achieve his SMART goal. ACTIVITY (3 minutes): Using the rating rubrics (see Option B and C), how should Mr. Smith be rated? Discuss in pairs. Report out. 69%

SGP Decision Rules for Standard 7 OPTION B Exemplary Effective Developing/Needs Improvement Unacceptable SGP More than 50% of students show high growth and no more than 10% show low growth At least 65% of students show moderate to high growth No more than 50% of students show low growth More than 50% of students show low growth Student Achievement Goal Setting OPTION B For goals at 80% or higher, must exceed by 10% * For goals below 80% must exceed by 20% For goals at 80% or higher, must be within 10% For goals below 80% must be within 5% For goals at 80% or higher, missed goal by more than 10% For goals below 80%, missed goal by more than 5% For goals at 80% or higher, missed goal by more than 20% For goals below 80%, missed goal by more than 15% Other Measures Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates exemplary student performance Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates on-target student performance Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates inconsistent student performance Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates overall low student performance NOTES: In this example of a scoring rubric (Option B), the Student Achievement Goal Setting row spells out performance for each rating category for SMART goals. Using this rubric, teachers are encouraged to set SMART goals at least at 80% as the margin of error is greater for them. For example, in order to be rated “Effective” with an 80% goal, the teacher’s class must achieve within 10%; however, for goals less than 80%, the teacher’s class must achieve within 5%. This latter scenario applies to Mr. Smart. NOTE: Depending on the context (subject, student composition, grade) and rigor of the SMART goal, the administrator has the discretion to broaden the parameters of each of the scoring categories. Note*: For goals set at 100%, must be within 5% to be rated exemplary.

SGP Decision Rules for Standard 7 OPTION B Exemplary Effective Developing/Needs Improvement Unacceptable SGP More than 50% of students show high growth and no more than 10% show low growth At least 65% of students show moderate to high growth No more than 50% of students show low growth More than 50% of students show low growth Student Achievement Goal Setting OPTION B For goals at 80% or higher, must exceed by 10% For goals below 80% must exceed by 20% For goals at 80% or higher, must be within 10% For goals below 80% must be within 5% For goals at 80% or higher, missed goal by more than 10% For goals below 80%, missed goal by more than 5% For goals at 80% or higher, missed goal by more than 20% For goals below 80%, missed goal by more than 15% Other Measures Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates exemplary student performance Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates on-target student performance Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates inconsistent student performance Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates overall low student performance NOTES: With Option B, since the scores are approx within 5% of the goal, Mr. Smart would be rated “Effective” (with a 75% goal, and 74% and 69% of the students scoring 4 or better). Even though the performance of students on the persuasive component was 6 percentage points below the goal of 75%, the administrator has the discretion to broaden the range. During the initial year of implementation, administrators will apply moderate application of the scoring ranges for SMART goals.

SGP Decision Rules for Standard 7 OPTION C Exemplary Effective Developing/Needs Improvement Unacceptable SGP More than 50% of students show high growth and no more than 10% show low growth At least 65% of students show moderate to high growth No more than 50% of students show low growth More than 50% of students show low growth Student Achievement Goal Setting OPTION C Must exceed baseline data by 70% (Max: 100) Must exceed baseline data by 50-69% Must exceed baseline data by 40-49% Exceeds baseline data by less than 40% Other Measures Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates exemplary student performance Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates on-target student performance Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates inconsistent student performance Other indicators of student achievement/progress indicates overall low student performance NOTES: In this example of the OPTION C scoring rubric, the Student Achievement Goal Setting row spells out performance for each rating category for SMART goals. Using this rubric, scoring categories are based on percentage gain. With the results of 74% (46% gain, 28% to 74%) and 69% (49% gain, 20% to 69%), Mr. Smith could be rated “Needs Improvement” using this scoring rubric. Even though the percentage gain of students on both tests was slightly less than 50%, the administrator has the discretion to broaden the range to rate the teacher “Effective.” Even if the rating using OPTION C was “Needs Improvement,” the administrator will use the rating that is the highest of Options B and C; therefore the rating using Option B would be “Effective” for the Student Achievement Goal Setting category of the total rating for Standard 7. Administrators will have the discretion to use either/all of 3 options (A,B,C) as appropriate to score Standard 7.

Ratings on Standard 7 using SMART goals, and other measures of student progress A grade 7 Mathematics example NOTES: Now, let’s discuss how multiple measures are used to determine the rating for Standard 7.

Rating on Standard 7 Teacher Description Student Achievement Goal Setting Attainment Summary for SMART goal (1) for SMART goal (2) Other Measures of Student Progress/Achievement 7th grade Math teacher who teaches five classes All students demonstrated measurable progress on a rigorous math SMART goal set at 80%. 68% of the students met the goal on the post assessment. All students demonstrated measurable progress on a rigorous math SMART goal set at 80%. 79% of the students met the goal on the post assessment. The school instituted a performance assessment to assess conceptual understanding in mathematics and 90 percent of the teacher’s students perform at the proficient level or above. Level 1 Analysis of Student Academic Progress Data For each data source, use the rubric for rating on Standard 7: Student Academic Progress.  Exemplary  Effective  Developing/ Needs Improvement   Unacceptable   Rationale: The decision rules state that a teacher is Developing/Needs Improvement if students missed an 80% SMART goal by more than 10% but less than 20%.  Effective  Needs Improvement Rationale: The decision rules state that a teacher is Effective if students score within 10% of an 80% SMART goal. Rationale: 90 percent of the students performed at the proficient level. NOTES: Here is a two-level rating rubric for Standard 7. In this example of a 7th grade Math teacher, 2 SMART goals, and other measures of student progress will be considered in determining the rating for Standard 7. A two step process (Level 1 and Level 2) is used to determine the rating for Standard 7. Now, let’s look at each step. Level 2 Analysis of Student Academic Progress Data Based on the four ratings indicated above, indicate a summative rating  Exemplary  Effective   Developing/ Needs Improvement  Unacceptable Rationale: Multiple data sources indicate that the teacher’s students made acceptable progress. While the SMART goal 1 was rated Needs Improvement, the performance on SMART goal 2 and other measures indicate that the teacher should be rated as Effective.

Rating on Standard 7 Teacher Student Achievement Goal Setting Attainment Summary for SMART goal (1) Student Achievement Goal Setting Attainment Summary for SMART goal (2) Other Measures of Student Progress/Achievement 7th grade Math teacher who teaches five classes All students demonstrated measurable progress on a rigorous math SMART goal set at 80%. 68% of the students met the goal on the post assessment. All students demonstrated measurable progress on a rigorous math SMART goal set at 80%. 79% of the students met the goal on the post assessment . The school instituted a performance assessment to assess conceptual understanding in mathematics and 90 percent of the teacher’s students perform at the proficient level or above. NOTES: Here, we have a description of the 2 SMART goal results, and results from another measure. On the achievement of SMART goal 1, 68% met the SMART goal (which was 80%). On the achievement of the SMART goal 2, 79% met the SMART goal (which was 80%), and 90% of the teacher’s students were proficient on a Math assessment.

Level 1 Analysis of Student Academic Progress Data Rating on Standard 7 Level 1 Analysis of Student Academic Progress Data For each data source, use the rubric for rating on Standard 7: Student Academic Progress.  Exemplary  Effective  Developing/ Needs Improvement   Unacceptable   Rationale: The decision rules state that a teacher is Developing/Needs Improvement if students missed the 80% SMART goals by more than 10% but less than 20%.  Effective  Improvement Rationale: The decision rules state that a teacher is Effective if students score within 10% of an 80% SMART goal. Rationale: 90 percent of the students performed at the proficient level. NOTES: Based on an analysis of the results using Option B, this teacher was rated “Developing/Needs Improvement” for SMART goal 1, “Effective” for both the achievement of the SMART goal 2 and performance on the Math assessment. Read the rationale for each.

Rating on Standard 7 Level 2 Analysis of Student Academic Progress Data Based on the four ratings indicated above, indicate a summative rating.  Exemplary  Effective   Developing/ Needs Improvement  Unacceptable Rationale: Multiple data sources indicate that the teacher’s students made acceptable progress. While the SMART goal 1 was rated Needs Improvement, the performance on SMART goal 2 and other measures indicate that the teacher should be rated as Effective. NOTES: Using the principle of “preponderance of evidence,” this teacher was rated “Effective” for Standard 7 using multiple data sources.

How will the overall summative rating be determined? NOTES: Now, let’s discuss how the overall summative rating is determined. Remember the summative rating will be used for probationary teachers in years 1-3, and continuing contract teachers every 3 years.

Components of Teacher Summative Performance Report Performance Standard 1: Professional Knowledge Exemplary In addition to meeting the standard… Effective Effective is the expected level of performance. Developing/Needs Improvement Unacceptable In addition to meeting the standard, the teacher consistently demonstrates extensive knowledge of the subject matter and continually enriches the curriculum.      The teacher demonstrates an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, and the developmental needs of students by providing relevant learning experiences. The teacher inconsistently demonstrates understanding of the curriculum, content, and student development or lacks fluidity in using the knowledge in practice. The teacher bases instruction on material that is inaccurate or out-of-date and/or inadequately addresses the developmental needs of students.  COMMENTS: Teacher effectively aligns instruction with standards, and demonstrates the importance of linking present and prior learning. She engages her students in the learning by demonstrating belief in them, encourages their efforts, and checks for understanding. NOTES: Here is an example of the 4 point rubric that will be used for each of the 7 standards to determine the overall summative rating. Please note: The rating of “Effective” is the expected level of performance. “Exemplary” ratings for specific standards will be given sparingly. Teachers who are rated “Exemplary” on a specific standard would be those that serve as role models or experts in that area of teaching practice and/or serves as teacher leaders in a PLC. In addition, these teachers should demonstrate high student achievement growth.

Example of Calculations for Overall Rating Teacher Performance Standard Performance Rating Quantified Performance Rating Standard 1 Effective 3 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5 Standard 6 Exemplary 4 Standard 7 12 31 NOTES: In this scale, the maximum is 40. For standards 1-6, the max is 4, and 16 is the max for standard 7. Remember, Standard 7 counts 40% of the total. (See page 85 of the PGS manual.)

Overall Summative Rating Total Points OVERALL RATING 10-17 Unacceptable DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS 18-25 Developing/Needs 26-34 Effective MEETS STANDARDS 35-40 Exemplary NOTES: A range for each rating is applied from the calculations in the previous chart, with the exceptions noted. The total of 31 from the previous calculations results in a “MEETS STANDARDS” for an overall summative rating. Regardless of overall total points earned: Three or more “developing/needs improvement” ratings on individual performance standards will result in an overall DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS. One “unacceptable” rating on any one performance standard will result in an overall DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS (1).

Components of Teacher Summative Performance Report Performance Standard 1: Professional Knowledge Exemplary In addition to meeting the standard… Effective Effective is the expected level of performance. Developing/Needs Improvement Unacceptable In addition to meeting the standard, the teacher consistently demonstrates extensive knowledge of the subject matter and continually enriches the curriculum.      The teacher demonstrates an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, and the developmental needs of students by providing relevant learning experiences. The teacher inconsistently demonstrates understanding of the curriculum, content, and student development or lacks fluidity in using the knowledge in practice. The teacher bases instruction on material that is inaccurate or out-of-date and/or inadequately addresses the developmental needs of students.  COMMENTS: Teacher effectively aligns instruction with standards, and demonstrates the importance of linking present and prior learning. She engages her students in the learning by demonstrating belief in them, encourages their efforts, and checks for understanding. Therefore, student learning is promoted.   NOTES: The overall summative rating would be recorded as either “MEETS STANDARDS” or “DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS.” Overall Summative Rating MEETS STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS

The SCPS Professional Growth System Decision Rules for Standard 7 and the Summative Evaluation End of Session 2 OPTIONAL ACTIVITY (15-30 minutes): Teacher groups will be given 2 activities (A and B) of teachers’ performances on Standard 7 including 2 SMART goals and other measures of student progress. They will be asked to rate each SMART goal using Options A, B and C of a rating rubric, and arrive at a rating for the other measures of student progress; then arrive at an overall rating for Standard 7. See Session 3 activity sheet. End of SESSION 3