Connecting the DPI Dots: CCSS, Balanced Assessment and Educator Effectiveness Updates January 2012

Common Core State Standards Updates January 2012

Our Goal The Common Core State Standards are the impetus for: A more connected, systems-change approach to school/district innovation and improvement Clear definitions of “high quality” and “college and career readiness” True instructional change for ALL educators and instructional leaders Increased student LEARNING

4

School-wide Implementation Review An infrastructure is in place that ensures that every student accesses grade level CCSS. Educators and administrators know and understand the content of the CCSS. Literacy strategies are used to deepen students’ understanding of each discipline. A comprehensive system is in place so students develop the dispositions and skills to prepare them for college and career. Formative and summative classroom assessments are used to gauge student progress and make instructional decisions.

Items currently in progress CCSS School-wide Implementation Review Disciplinary literacy Google sites in each content area Planning underway for content support for educators in ELA and mathematic Partnership between PK-12 and IHEs to assist in common language, approach, priorities around CCSS implementation

Some things to do TODAY Download WI CCSS Guidance documents for ELA and mathematics and begin content area PLC conversations Download WI CCSS Guidance documents for disciplinary literacy and begin a conversation about DL with your school-level leadership team Download and examine the SBAC Content Specifications and consider the implications for curriculum and instruction Visit and join a community of practice to implement the CCSS to improve reading instruction

Getting SMARTER: The Future of Online Balanced Assessment in Wisconsin January 2012

Today SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium Background System overview Updates Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium WIDA Consortium

Changes in Assessment We know the WKCE, WAA-SwD, and ACCESS for ELLs assessments are going away. What will replace them? How will the new assessments be different? Current Assessment New AssessmentChanges WKCESMARTER Balanced Assessment System Spring administration; online; adaptive; new item types WAA-SwDDynamic Learning MapsSpring administration; online; based on learning maps ACCESS for ELLs ASSETS for ELsOnline; ELP standards based on CCSS

An Introduction

29 Member States

Common Core State Standards specify K-12 expectations for college and career readiness All students leave high school college and career ready Assessment System Components Teachers can access formative processes and tools to improve instruction Teachers can access formative processes and tools to improve instruction Interim assessments that are flexible, open, and provide actionable feedback Summative assessments benchmarked to college and career readiness

Assessment System Components Assessment system that balances summative, interim, and formative components for ELA and mathematics: Summative Assessment (Computer Adaptive) Mandatory comprehensive assessment in grades 3–8 and 11 (testing window within the last 12 weeks of the instructional year) that supports accountability and measures growth Selected response, short constructed response, extended constructed response, technology enhanced, and performance tasks Interim Assessment (Computer Adaptive) Optional comprehensive and content-cluster assessment Learning progressions Available for administration throughout the year Selected response, short constructed response, extended constructed response, technology enhanced, and performance tasks Formative Processes and Tools Optional resources for improving instructional learning Assessment literacy

Timeline

FUTURE OF ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT IN WISCONSIN Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

General Supervision Enhancement Grant (GSEG) IDEA funded grant awarded by the Office of Special Education Programs, at the U.S. Dept. of Education. Four Years Two consortia were awarded grants National Center and State Collaborative Dynamic Learning Maps Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

DLM Consortium Member States

Outcomes of the Consortium New extended standards and achievement level descriptors based on the Common Core State Standards for ELA and Math Learning maps, which will include tasks of various proficiency levels leading to formative assessment and tools for educators. Annual summative assessment (used for accountability purposes)- online, adaptive Professional development modules for teacher training Advanced feedback and reporting systems (including growth modeling)

Assessment System Components An assessment system that provides a summative (point-in- time) assessment as well as formative and interim assessment components for ELA and mathematics throughout the year. 1. Computer adaptive summative assessment Grades 3–8 and 11 (testing window in the Spring) Selected response, constructed response, technology enhanced instructionally relevant items 2. Computer adaptive formative and interim tools Based on learning maps Administered throughout the year 3. Professional development modules for educators 4. Advanced feedback and reporting systems

Contacts Kristen Burton Office of Educational Accountability Erin Faasuamalie Special Education Team Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

For more information Ongoing updates are available in the OEA Newsletter Produced quarterly during the school year Available online: SBAC Quarterly Reports Available on OEA’s SBAC webpage: General SBAC info: Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium WIDA Consortium (ASSETS for ELs)

An Update on Educator Effectiveness in the State of Wisconsin January 2012

Design Team American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (Bryan Kennedy) Association of Wisconsin School Administrators (AWSA) (Jim Lynch) Office of the Governor (Michael Brickman) Professional Standards Council (PSC) (Lisa Benz) Wisconsin Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (WACTE) (Julie Underwood) Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges & Universities (WAICU) (Kathy Lake) Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) (John Ashley) Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators (WASDA) (Miles Turner) Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) (Mary Bell)

Guiding Principles An educator evaluation system must deliver information that Guides effective educational practice that is aligned with student learning and development. Documents evidence of effective educator practice. Documents evidence of student learning. Informs appropriate professional development. Informs educator preparation programs. Supports a full range of human resource decisions. Is credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and uniform across districts.

Definition of Effective Educators Effective Teacher: An effective teacher consistently uses educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways. Effective Principal: An effective principal shapes school strategy and educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.

Pre- service Licensing In-service PI34 Evaluation Seamless Transitions

Teachers Foundation for Teacher Practice Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards Framework for Teacher Evaluation Charlotte Danielson Domains and Components Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Domain 3:Instruction Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

Principals Foundation for Principal Practice 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards Framework for Principal Evaluation Subordinate functions of ISLLC standards

Equivalency Review Process Districts may create their own rubrics of educator practice. Districts must apply to the State Superintendent for approval through an equivalency review process.

Educator Practice Teacher Practice Each component should be evaluated on multiple sources of evidence. These could include: Observations of teacher practice Review of documents Surveys/data Discussions with the teacher Principal Practice Each component should be evaluated on multiple sources of evidence. These could include: Observations of principal practice Review of documents Interviews with stakeholders Surveys/data Discussions with the principal

System Weights Student Growth Educator Practice

Models of Practice Detail (50 % of evaluation)

Student Outcome Detail (50% of evaluation) Student Learning Objectives Models of Practice District Choice

Student Outcome Weights—PK- 8 State assessment, district assessment, SLOs, and other measures SLOs and other measures

Student Outcome Weights—9 -12 District assessment, SLOs, and other measures SLOs

Educator Effectiveness System Matrix Student Outcomes Models of Practice ** 2* 3 4* 5** Asterisks indicate a mismatch between educator’s practice performance and student outcomes and requires a focused review to determine why the mismatch is occurring and what, if anything, needs to be corrected.

Category Ratings Developing: does not meet expectations and requires additional support and directed action Effective: areas of strength and improvement addressed through professional development Exemplary: expand expertise through professional development and use expertise in leadership

Educator Effectiveness Timeline Stage 1 Developing Stage 2 Piloting Stage 3 Implementing Continuous Improvement Framework Release Model Development Developmental Districts Voluntary Pilots Development work Evaluator and Educator training System training Pilot Evaluation Model revisions Training continued Statewide implementation strategy Educator Effectiveness system implemented statewide

Educator Effectiveness Timeline Stage 1 Developing Framework Release Model Development Developmental Districts Timeline: January – June 2012 Work groups meet once or twice per month

Fundamental Tasks in Stage 1 Teacher Practice rubric Principal Practice rubric Student/School Learning Outcomes (SLOs) Data Systems Development & Management Framework Pre-Pilot Process Evaluation Process and Manuals

Teacher Practice Rubric Work Group Representatives: DPI WCER Stakeholder representatives: teachers principals district leaders Actions & Products: Rubric review & adaptation. Draft teacher rubric developed by March 2012 Final rubric completed by May 2012 Identification of evidence sources determined by end of April 2012 Evidence & rubric weight scoring determination process completed by end of June 2012 Evidence collection forms & processes completed by end of June 2012

Principal Practice Rubric Work Group Representatives: DPI WCER Stakeholder representatives: teachers principals district leaders Actions & Products: Rubric review & adaptation. Draft principal rubric developed by March 2012 Final rubric completed by May 2012 Identification of evidence sources determined by end of April 2012 Evidence & rubric weight scoring determination process completed by end of June 2012 Evidence collection forms & processes completed by end of June 2012

Student/School Learning Outcome Work Group Representatives: WCER Stakeholder representatives: teachers principals district leaders Actions & Products: Create “checklist” for selecting & creating SLOs by reviewing existing versions (Denver, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Austin, Rhode Island) & modify as necessary. Scoring rubric: beginning with guidance developed previously by other districts, and adapting as necessary, create a rubric for evaluators (principals and/or content experts) to use in evaluating SLO evidence submitted by teachers. Process document: create a document (perhaps a “short” and a “long” version) which describes the entire process for creating SLOs, gathering evidence, and rating evidence, with timelines for each step in the process. This document could form the basis for school-level, district- level, or regional trainings around the SLO process.

Data Systems Development & Management Framework Work Group Representatives: DPI WCER Stakeholder representatives: teachers principals district leaders Actions & Products: Status report due in June 2012 containing: current status of statewide SIS when specific areas of functionality within SIS will be available when a pilot version of “full” system implementation will be possible for a select group of districts Preliminary report & recommendations regarding a “digitization tool” for capturing and storing practice data.

Pre-Pilot Process Work Group Representatives: DPI WCER External evaluator Actions & Products: Pre-pilot of SLO process will need to include: an assessment of the SLO process for teachers & principals SLOs the assessment constructed as “action research” designed to maximize feedback from teachers & principals The review of the pre-pilot work will be completed by end of June 2012.

Evaluation Process & Manuals Work Group Representatives: DPI WCER Representatives from SLO and educator practice teams Actions & Products: Teacher evaluation manual will encompass the process for evaluating teacher practice and the student learning objective measures. The draft manual will be completed by end of June 2012 Principal evaluation manual will encompass the process for evaluating principal practice and the school learning objective measures. The draft manual will be completed by end of June 2012

Educator Effectiveness Timeline* Stage 2 Piloting Continuous Improvement Voluntary Pilots Development work Evaluator and Educator training System training Pilot Evaluation Model revisions Training continued Statewide implementation strategy *All work contingent on funding and resources

Evaluator & Educator Training A training program will be developed which will: Describe both educator practice and student outcome data collection and feedback. Explain value-added student outcomes Describe formative and summative evaluation processes Explain performance rating categories

Voluntary Pilots Diverse school districts will pilot the state model (urban, suburban and rural school districts). Pilot will be conducted for one full school year. Large districts will pilot test in a sample of schools. Smaller districts will pilot test in a substantial portion or perhaps all of the district’s schools. Evaluators and those being evaluated will be trained before participating in the pilot test.

Pilot Evaluation An external evaluator will evaluate the pilot program which will include formative and summative feedback on the following: Implementation process Understanding and acceptance Reliability Validity Impact on educator practice

Contact information DPI Educator Effectiveness webpage at Beverly Cann, DPI Education Consultant at or