SEADAE Assessment Institute July 29, 2014.  To provide a level of richness that develops assessment literacy and changes teacher practice- not just teacher.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Understanding Student Learning Objectives (S.L.O.s)
Advertisements

Response to Instruction ________________________________ Response To Intervention New Opportunities for Students and Reading Professionals.
Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Pilot September 1, 2011 – September 30, 2012 NJ State Board of Education, July 13, 2011.
Implementation of the PA Core Standards. Effective Communication Guiding Principle 1 Design and establish systems of effective communication among stakeholders.
USING THE INSTRUCTIONAL BLUEPRINT TO GUIDE TIER I WORK.
Student Growth Measures in Teacher Evaluation Module 1: Introduction to Student Growth Measures and SLOs.
Kansas Educator Evaluation Bill Bagshaw Asst. Director Kansas State Department of Education February 13, 2015.
On The Road to College and Career Readiness Hamilton County ESC Instructional Services Center Christina Sherman, Consultant.
Getting Organized for the Transition to the Common Core What You Need to Know.
Student Growth Measures in Teacher Evaluation
SLO Process A process to document a measure of educator effectiveness based on student achievement of content standards.
1 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations – for all students – for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through the.
1 Professional Development Planning and Needs Assessment Regional Trainings Spring 2006.
Report to the Board of Education October 15, 2007.
Student Learning Objectives 1 Implementing High Quality Student Learning Objectives: The Promise and the Challenge Maryland Association of Secondary School.
Principals’ Council Meetings May  Given feedback from multiple stakeholders and after much deliberation, PDE has made the determination to classify.
Student Learning Objectives The SLO Process Student Learning Objectives Training Series Module 3 of 3.
1. 2 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations –for all students –for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through.
Student Learning Objectives 1 Phase 3 Regional Training April 2013.
1 Curriculum and Instruction Report Pocantico Hills School February 28, 2005.
One Voice – One Plan Office of Education Improvement and Innovation MI-CSI: Do Stage Implement Plan and Monitor Plan.
NEXT GENERATION BALANCED ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS ALIGNED TO THE CCSS Stanley Rabinowitz, Ph.D. WestEd CORE Summer Design Institute June 19,
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) 1 Michele Westphal.
Iowa’s Teacher Quality Program. Intent of the General Assembly To create a student achievement and teacher quality program that acknowledges that outstanding.
Marietta Rives, DE Consultant, Co-Chair of Instruction & Assessment Team Jan Norgaard, AEA 13 Associate Director, Network Team Member Deb Johnsen, AEA.
Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System
OFFICE OF FIELD SERVICES SPRING PLANNING WORKSHOP 2012.
Implementation of the Common Core Learning Standards BOE Meeting Presentation May 22, 2012.
Connecting the Dots PLC AfL DI Higher Order Thinking TLCP Multi- Literacies Arts Technology Inquiry BIP SEF SIP.
Educator Evaluation Spring Convening Connecting Policy, Practice and Practitioners May 28-29, 2014 Marlborough, Massachusetts.
Giselle Neal Paulding County School District 2013.
The Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program California Postsecondary Education Commission California Mathematics & Science Partnership 2011 Spring.
1 Historical Perspective... Historical Perspective... Science Education Reform Efforts Leading to Standards-based Science Education.
1. Housekeeping Items June 8 th and 9 th put on calendar for 2 nd round of Iowa Core ***Shenandoah participants*** Module 6 training on March 24 th will.
Technology Needs Assessment Presentation for Los Fresnos HS
Creating Coherence: The ELA Common Core and the Instructional Frameworks Michelle Lewis and Terese Emry Puget Sound ESD
Welcome to the Annual Meeting of Title I Parents Insert School Name/Date.
A state-wide effort to improve teaching and learning to ensure that all Iowa students engage in a rigorous & relevant curriculum. The Core Curriculum.
Lancaster County School District. Student Learning Objectives are the product of an interest in extending the available data for educators throughout.
©IRRE First Things First : A Framework and Supports For District and School Reform William Moore, Ph.D Institute for Research and Reform in Education Boston,
CIcu Conference June 18, 2014 Joan Thompson Mid- Hudson Region.
Virginia WebEx Program Division Support for Substantial School Improvement 1.
Annual Title I Meeting School Name. Why are we here? The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that each Title I School hold an Annual Meeting.
TECHNOLOGY USE PLAN INFORMATIONAL LETTER: 7 POLICY CODE: IJND Technology Planning Guidelines July 26, 2002.
Jackson County Public Schools Technology Plan Kimberly Body and Elizabeth Perin Liberty University Education 639.
Welcome to the Annual Meeting of Title I Parents Mundy’s Mill Middle.
2 Louisiana Believes Objective: The Department is providing districts increased support in preparation for the school year. As districts plan for.
BISD Update Teacher & Principal Evaluation Update Board of Directors October 27,
Learning More About Oregon’s ESEA Waiver Plan January 23, 2013.
Presented By WVDE Title I Staff June 10, Fiscal Issues Maintain an updated inventory list, including the following information: description of.
Accreditation (AdvancED) STANDARD #2: GOVERNANCE & LEADERSHIP
Understanding Student Learning Objectives (S.L.O.s)
Zimmerly Response NMIA Audit. Faculty Response Teacher input on Master Schedule. Instructional Coaches Collaborative work. Design and implement common.
CAPS: COACHING TEACHERS Facilitator: Dr. Lynne Paradis BELIZE LITERACY PROGRAM June 2011.
SCOTT MARION, CENTER FOR ASSESSMENT PRESENTATION AT CCSSO NCSA AS PART OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON: STUDENT GROWTH IN THE NON-TESTED SUBJECTS AND GRADES: OPTIONS.
DESE District Review Center for District and School Accountability Site Visit: April 11-14, 2011.
WHY? To transform teaching and learning.. Strategic Pillars Goal 1: Student Growth and High Academic Achievement – Develop and implement a comprehensive.
Creative Intervention Planning through Universal Design for Learning MariBeth Plankers, M.S. CCC-SLP Page 127.
West Central Regional Service Center Race To the Top funding, important dates, forms and decisions.
NGSS Resources Facilitator Notes:
Phyllis Lynch, PhD Director, Instruction, Assessment and Curriculum
Professional Learning – October 12, 2015
Coaching for Math GAINS
Teacher Evaluation “SLO 101”
Kansas Educator Evaluation
Illinois Performance Evaluation Advisory Council Update
Illinois Performance Evaluation Advisory Council Update
Implementing Race to the Top
Project Outcomes (separate handout)
Continuous Assessment Establishing Checkpoints
Presentation transcript:

SEADAE Assessment Institute July 29, 2014

 To provide a level of richness that develops assessment literacy and changes teacher practice- not just teacher evaluation, but instead providing a rich instructional tool for teachers so that they could connect student assessment data with teaching and instruction

A (5)process to (4) document a (3) measure of educator effectiveness based on (2)student achievement of (1)content standards.

4 June 26,2014

 What items are in your “pie,” and at what percentages?  Are teachers in the arts affected differently than teachers in “tested grades and subjects,” and if so, how?

 Please refer to Handouts for ◦ SLO Template ◦ Performance Task Framework Elective Rating Indicators Measures GoalContext

 To meet federal RTT Requirements  To appropriately address the problem of teacher in non-tested grades and subjects  To improve understanding of assessment literacy for teachers and administrators  To encourage teachers to use student achievement data toward changing instructional practice

 What processes are you using in your state to gather evidence of student achievement?  Are these processes tied to teacher evaluation, and if so, how?  Why were these processes chosen?

Development of materials and processes: pdesas.org

 Implementation Timelines  Turn around training ◦ Authors to Intermediate Unit personnel ◦ IU personnel to school district implementation teams  Intent for materials to be used several ways: ◦ For professional trainers ◦ For school leaders and implementation team members ◦ For personal study

 What materials did your state develop to support use of student achievement as a teacher evaluation tool?  What processes were undertaken to train and implement those materials as part of teacher evaluation?

 Regional Education Lab  MACC West Ed  Center for Assessment  Reform Support Network ◦ SLO Toolkit SLO Toolkit ◦ sa/workgroups/slo/slo-toolkit

 Intent for a 3 year plan, still in flux due to current budget constraints  Original plan focused on materials, training, and perception of SLO process ability to improve teaching and learning.  Available studies come primarily from schools who based the process on teacher incentive funds

 State recommended process that will be implemented 500 different ways (LEA control)  Distrust of teacher evaluation systems ◦ Unions ◦ Denial  Funding ◦ State timelines and procurement processes ◦ RTT allocation restrictions ◦ SLO was the last piece of teacher evaluation developed but the least familiar piece

 Least familiar component of teacher evaluation ◦ Last one developed ◦ Perception that SLO should be easy, not cumbersome  Developing “Guidelines for Implementation” ◦ LEA control state ◦ Gaming the system  Teachers in non-tested grades and subjects are not familiar with PA Standards and Curriculum Framework

 Levels of alignment required by the process ◦ Alignment to PA Standards ◦ Alignment of Assessment to Goals and Standards  Connecting PA vision of student achievement to vendor-developed processes and tests  Understanding that SLO is intended to be content specific ◦ Continued attempts by administrators to have all teachers support Math and ELA goals ◦ Difficulty understanding assessments that are not easily quantified

 What challenges did you find in your state when implementing evidence of student achievement as part of teacher evaluation?

 Capacity difficulties on all levels ◦ Money ◦ Time to build and train: building the plane while flying it ◦ Training  Capacity to support trainers  Supervision of trainers  Understanding the diversity of trainer abilities/perspectives  Ways in which trainers and teachers retrieve and learn information has changed, suggesting “sound byte” learning  Trainer buy-in was weak

 Should we have trained Assessment Literacy first? ◦ Tests should be built from blueprints ◦ Designing, Building and Reviewing assessments is a misunderstood art form  Teachers are so inundated with new teacher evaluation changes that they will settle for compliance as opposed to the rich instructional tool that SLO can be  Teachers and trainers are reluctant to commit to percentages of students demonstrating achievment

 SLO is an opportunity to honor teaching of all content standards areas  SLO is a rich instructional practice  SLO is not an easy piece to initially understand or implement