Moving Beyond Math & Reading 3-8: How Value-Added Models Can Incorporate Other Types of Assessments Garron Gianopulos, PhD North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Marianne Motley, Ohio Department of Education John White, PhD SAS, Instititute June 25, 2014

Moving Beyond Math & Reading 3-8: How Value-Added Models Can Incorporate Other Types of Assessments Marianne Mottley, Assistant Director, Office of Accountability Ohio Department of Education

“A principal or a superintendent must be able to say to the school board and the public: Everyone who teaches here is good – and here’s how I know.” - Charlotte Danielson

Improve teaching and learning Ultimate goal of teacher evaluation

How do we get there?

Evaluation Framework AccomplishedSkilledDevelopingIneffective Final Summative Rating Teacher Performance on Standards 50% Student Growth Measures 50%

RttT Teacher-Student Linkage Spring % of Ohio’s LEAs Participated Spring % of Ohio’s LEAs Participated Spring % of Ohio’s LEAs Participated

Linkage Required Linkage Grades Reading - Math Optional Linkage for Extended Testing - Grades K-3 reading and math - Grades K-4, 6, 7 science - Grades K-8 social studies - Grades 9-12 all content areas

Extended Testing Programs RttT Mini-Grant - Grades 1-3 R/M - Grades 2-3 Science - Grade 3 Social Studies Project SOAR - Grade 3 R/M - Grades 3-8 Social Studies - Grades 3, 4, 6, 7 Science - High School EOC Exams

RttT Mini-Grant Not a mandatory part of RttT Districts could opt in by submitting a mini- grant application District agreement with ODE Two-Year Grant = Two-Year Commitment

RttT Mini-Grant Overview Grant pays for assessments in grades K-3 and for teacher value added reports Pools created based on which assessments were most widely used Three pools in Ohio - Terra Nova (CTB McGraw Hill) - MAP (NWEA) - STAR (Renaissance Learning)

Mini-Grant Overview Univariate Response Model (URM) Predicted Mean Approach Tests Properties - High correlation to curricular objectives - Have sufficient stretch - Must be sufficiently reliable

Mini-Grant Overview Univariate Response Model (URM) Minimum 3 prior year’s or years’ tests (predictor tests) Pool must have same predictors Pool must have same current year tests (response tests)

RttT Mini-Grant Overview Predictor Testing Requirements Terra Nova - Spring window in at least 3 subjects - Reading and math mandatory - Science or social studies optional MAP/STAR - Fall & spring windows in at least 2 subjects - Reading and math mandatory

Mini-Grant Overview Some districts had prior test data and received reports in 2013 For others, 2014 will be their first year when reports will be generated Pools must remain stable across years Districts cannot deviate from a pool

Mini-Grant Overview Reports must be used for teacher evaluation Considered to be a vendor assessment for the evaluation system Must be used for at least 10% of the 50% that comprises student growth measures

Project SOAR Battelle for Kids Project SOAR Created in 2002 with 42 districts 2014 over 100 SOAR districts Uses value-added data to drive decision making and enhance student learning Must use for teacher evaluations

Project SOAR Grades 3-8 Grade 2 Terra Nova R/M/S/SS Grade 3 reading & math using Ohio achievement assessments All available prior years’ data Grades 3-8 social studies using Terra Nova social studies test All available prior years’ data Grades 3, 4, 6, 7 science using Terra Nova science test Predictor DataResponse Data

Project SOAR High School Uses ACT Quality Core End-of-Course Exams Four Content Areas Mathematics Algebra I Geometry Algebra II Pre-Calculus English/Language Arts English 9 English 10 English 11 English 12 Science Biology Chemistry I Social Studies U.S. History

Other BFK Clients NWEA and possibly other vendors Using “single year” Multivariate Response Model (MRM) for Year 1 - Uses fall tests as baseline data - Uses spring tests to measure growth Using “across years” MRM approach for Year 2 and beyond

Other BFK Clients Districts will partner directly with BFK Exact grades/subjects yet to be determined Grade 3 reading and math will use Ohio’s achievement assessments as response (using URM calculation)

education.ohio.gov

Social ohio-department-of-education Ohio Families and Education Ohio Teachers’ Homeroom OhioEdDept storify.com/ohioEdDept

Moving Beyond Math & Reading 3-8: How Value-Added Models Can Incorporate Other Types of Assessments Garron Gianopulos, PhD Psychometrician, Technical Development of Statewide Assessments, Design and Implementation of Tests, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction June 25, 2014

Overview A Year of Change How NC Uses EVAAS Outcomes and Plans for the Future

: A Year of Change 2005: Implemented new growth formula 28 READY Assessments Introduced all new READY end-of-grade (EOG) Assessments in grades 3 through 8 New READY end-of-course (EOC) assessments All EOGs and EOCs were aligned to the common core state standards, adopted in 2010 All new standards classifying students as ready for the next grade level and on-track to college New proficiency levels

: A Year of Change 2005: Implemented new growth formula 29 New Laws Read to Achieve Law required third graders to demonstrate proficiency in reading 35 new third grade portfolio reading assessments Beginning-of-grade 3 Reading assessment School Letter Grades Grade letter determined by proficiency and EVAAS growth

: A Year of Change 2005: Implemented new growth formula 30 Race to the Top Assessments for Teacher Evaluation New Teacher Effectiveness model required teachers to demonstrate growth 6 New Occupational Course of Study (OCS) assessments 30 New NC Final Exams Science exams in grade 4,6,7, and high school New H.S. Math exams Social Studies exams in grade 4 – 9 and high school Historically non-tested subjects

: A Year of Change 2005: Implemented new growth formula 31 State Board of Education (SBE) Not all board members were comfortable with the new proficiency levels A policy decision was made to change original 4 achievement levels to 5 achievement levels The new level differentiates between readiness for next grade level and being on-track for college NC is a governing member of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC); however, the SBE is re-evaluating consortia and future testing options Keeping current READY assessments through

Overview A Year of Change How NC Uses EVAAS Outcomes and Plans for the Future

How NC Uses the Educator Value Added Assessment System (EVAAS) 33 Educator Instructional Planning School Accountability Educator Effectiveness

Instructional Planning : EVAAS provides projections of EOG/EOC percentile scores at the beginning of the school year to help with instructional plans Student-level EVAAS projections are also provided for ACT, PLAN, and EXPLORE : EOG/EOC Scale score projections will be provided

35 The School Accountability System

We have a total of 6 standards in our teacher evaluation system. All standards, 1-6, are of equal value. Our goal: Identify our strongest teachers and explore their methodologies, and Support teachers who need to increase their effectiveness Three years of EVAAS growth measures needed before ratings apply North Carolina Educator Evaluation Process Teachers Establish Environment Know Content Facilitate Learning Demonstrate Leadership Reflect on Practice Contribute to Academic Success

Training Provided 37 Webinars with EVAAS team focused on how staff will continue to get value-added data with a change in standards –Understanding the EVAAS system of value- added growth –Conversion of assessment data to Normal Curve Equivalents (NCE’s) –Understanding the use of assessments in various growth models

EVAAS Models Used in NC 38 Multivariate Response Model (MRM) 17 End-of-grade Math and ELA assessments Used in the school accountability system Univariate Response Model (URM) 3 End-of-course assessments 6 Occupational Course of Study assessments 70 Career and Technical Exams 30 NC Final Exams (historically non-tested subjects) All available assessments used in educator effectiveness

What Types of Scores Can be Used in EVAAS? 39 Sufficient spread in the scale Limited ceiling or floor effects Correlation between covariates and score >.60 High reliability Test content needs to align closely to the instructed curriculum High Validity Standardized assessments need curricula that are also standardized

Overview A Year of Change How NC Uses EVAAS Outcomes and Plans for the Future

Outcomes from READY EOG/EOC Assessments Public backlash against quantity of testing (especially in grade 3), but not against our chosen growth model All READY EOG/EOC assessments and most Final Exams had the required properties to be used by EVAAS No changes were needed to the READY EOG/EOC assessments as these were developed over a three year time frame with sufficient funding The legislatively-driven calculations for school letter grades in the Accountability Model generated a disproportionately large percent of Fs and Ds

Outcomes from Final Exams Certain Final Exams and OCS assessments did not meet requirements to be utilized in the EVAAS models –Insufficient sample size –Insufficient correlations between covariates and test score –Insufficient reliabilities Floor effects surfaced on some High School Math assessments

Outcomes from Constructed Response Items (CR) NCDP provided general guidelines for managing CR item scoring process, but each district implemented their own process Constructed response (CR) items too labor intensive to score by teachers Many concerns about the security, inter-rater reliability, and accuracy of teacher-scored CR items

Outcomes from Response from Educators The large majority (79%) of teachers met or exceeded growth expectations Teachers with insufficient individual estimates were excluded from the rating system Few groups are comparing their own growth measures to EVAAS Most educators seem to be responding favorably to the EVAAS reports

Changes in Managerial Changes New chief in charge of the test development section The test development section is now managing the test development process for all Final Exams Increased test development staff to manage work load

Changes in Final Exams Name was changed from Common Exams to Final Exams to emphasize that they are intended to replace teacher-made final exams Testing time increased from 90 minutes to 120 minutes Reduced the number of Final Exams with CR items Reduced the number of CR items per exam Tests lengthened with MC items to increase reliability CR items scored by contractor rather than by NC teachers

47 Final Exams Moving many of the Final Exams to online administration Implementing common item non-equivalent equating design Experimental items embedded to provide greater statistical control in form assembly Reduced difficulty of some Math High School tests to improve reliability and remove floor effects Changes in

48 Providing more detail in test specifications to help teachers know what to instruct in those subjects where the curriculum standards are not specific enough The EVAAS team will determine if they can use the beginning-of-grade 3 assessment to measure growth Changes in

: More Change Ahead? 2005: Implemented new growth formula 49 The weight given to EVAAS growth within the school Accountability Model will likely increase to produce a more acceptable distribution of letter grades Two bills approved by senate and the house to rescind the Common Core State Standards Will funding for Final Exams remain at the same level?

Questions Every Student READY