1. 2010-2011Student Growth Model Salt Lake City School District Christine Marriott Assessment and Evaluation Department Salt Lake City School District State Student Growth Workgroup Oct 29, 2011 Improved teacher feedback using a student growth model

2. Effort and expense of district/state assessments Provide teachers quality feedback ◦ Knowledge of their students, to adjust instruction ◦ Information for reflection, goal setting, improvement Provide data to principals to empower them as instructional leaders ◦ Unbiased and fair ◦ Accurate and actionable Teacher feedback and data for reflection

3. CRT proficiency is highly correlated with family factors

4. How does this look in classrooms? AYP Target 5 th grade Language Arts test from spring 2010. Each dot is a classroom Classroom proficiency and low income

5. A student growth model can be used to gain a more accurate picture of the academic results in a school year

6. Scaled scores are used for measuring gains on CRTs In theory, using a scaled score allows us to compare one year to the next for individual student gains. 160 is always the passing score Spring 2009 Spring 2010 Student A160 Student B159163 1 year of growth More than 1 year of growth

7. How many points gain is a good or acceptable outcome? Avoid using an arbitrary measure Avoid a result that penalizes teachers in Title 1 schools, or any certain group Must work for different grade levels and tests Use scaled scores to refine growth on CRT compared to UPASS model

8. Student Growth Solution: Use our SLCSD data to determine what is the ‘normal’ or average gain for students. Language arts CRT scale score change for 1,214 SLCSD full academic year students (grade 6 in 2009 and grade 7 in 2010) Average gain is 3.8 SS points Difference in scale score between LA grade 6 and LA grade 7

9. Student Growth Solution: 130 to 140 141 to 145 146 to 150 151to 155 156 to 160 161 to 165 166 to 170 171to 175 176 to 180 181 to 185 Scale Score Range

10. Bad idea to compare different tests (test sequences) due to apparent differences in equating

11. Student Growth Solution: Use information from the entire district (for each test sequence) to identify the average gain for each ability level Create a custom scale for each test sequence each year to determine ‘average gain’ Compare each student’s gain to the ‘average gain’ Aggregate to the classroom to explore teacher effect

12. Possible methods to aggregate growth to the teacher (classroom) Percent of students at or above the average (with confidence interval)? Comparison between the student gain score and the average gain score

13. Inform, Recognize, Reward, Evaluate Provide teachers with the expected gain for each student on all test results Aggregate to classrooms and provide feedback about rankings Public recognition and/or Performance Pay Provide detailed information from multiple years to teachers and principals for ECAP, staffing decisions

14. Reflective Data (individual teachers)

15. Same school 3 rd grade math

16. Principal Report

17. 2010-2011 Academic Year Dr. McKell Withers, Superintendent Teacher Name Highly Effective Teaching Award School Academic Achievement Award at least 70% of students displaying growth in: Assessment and Evaluation Department Salt Lake Education Foundation Language Arts, Mathematics, Science

18. Current task: Build historical database to verify, assess stability, identify trends, troubleshoot employment issues, analysis of results considering teachers of students impacted by poverty, English acquisition, disability

19. MOST PRESSING ISSUE: EK – Education Knowledge: Data that is timely, accurate, available; Adequate tools and expertise to advance the mission e.g. accurate data linking student to teacher that accounts for subject area switching, long-term sub issues, teacher career trajectories

20. USOE Student Growth Work Group Progress

21. Mapping educators to standards, assessments & growth (Lee, 2010, based on preliminary data from MA DOE) 21 Marion. Non-Tested Grades/Subjects. SCASS 11/3/11

22. 22 Personnel defined by end of year state summative assessments available Personnel Type (Examples) Personnel teaching a core subject area where end of year state assessments measuring content taught in their subject area are available in two adjacent grades Grades 4 -10 core subject teachers for literacy and math Interventionists/specialists with shared responsibility with core subject teachers for improving literacy/numeracy skills of students in grades 4-10 (e.g., response to intervention specialists, ELA, special education teachers) Personnel teaching in a core subject area where an end of year state summative assessment is available to measure content taught in their classrooms. Science teachers (currently, grades 5,8 and 10) and grade 3 teachers with end of year summative state assessments available for their respective grade Personnel teaching in a core subject area where no end of year state summative assessments are currently available to measure content taught in their classrooms. Core subject teachers in the sciences (with the exception of grades 5, 8 and some personnel for10) and social studies. All ECE, grades K-2 and grades 11-12 teachers. Resource teachers/specialists with instructional responsibility not directly linked to literacy/numeracy skills of students (e.g., music, arts, and P.E. teachers) Personnel with no direct instructional responsibilities Resource teachers/specialists with indirect (non-instructional) responsibility for improving literacy/numeracy skills of students (e.g., social workers, psychologists, and school nurses).

23. Comparability What do we mean by comparability in this context?  Educators within the units of analysis are held to similar levels of expectations, at least in some relative sense  For example, it would be a threat to the system if the teachers in grades 4-8 reading and math received noticeably lower ratings than the rest of the teachers (NTSG) in the school At what levels is comparability important?  Within schools? Clearly yes.  Within districts? Probably yes.  Within states? It would be nice, but it might be too high of a bar right now. Marion. Non-Tested Grades/Subjects. SCASS 11/3/11 23

24. Comparability What do we mean by comparability in this context?  Educators within the units of analysis are held to similar levels of expectations, at least in some relative sense  For example, it would be a threat to the system if the teachers in grades 4-8 reading and math received noticeably lower ratings than the rest of the teachers (NTSG) in the school At what levels is comparability important?  Within schools? Clearly yes.  Within districts? Probably yes.  Within states? It would be nice, but it might be too high of a bar right now. Marion. Non-Tested Grades/Subjects. SCASS 11/3/11 24

25. What is emerging… Teachers in Tested Areas: % based on student growth % based on grade level team % based on outcomes of professional growth plan Teachers in Non- Tested Areas: % based on shared attribution % based on student assessment % based on outcomes of professional growth plan