Educator Evaluations:Important Dates & Information,

TSDL, Additional Resources

Office of Psychometrics, Accountability, Research and Evaluation

FOR EDUCATOR EVALUATION SYSTEMS

Important Dates & Information

Important Dates - Overview

During school years 2011/12 and 2012/13, Educator Evaluation Systems are locally determined, but evaluations must be based on student growth measures.

Data from local, state, and nationally standardized assessments should be integrated if/where available along with other evidence of growth from portfolios, behavior rubrics, etc.

Report one of four labels required by legislation in REP: Highly effective Effective Minimally effective Ineffective

The Governor’s Council will develop a tool to be used by districts beginning in 2013-14.

Important Dates

School Year

Tool Type

% of evaluation based on student

growth & achievement data

Reporting Requireme

nt

2011-2012

locally determined

Educator Evaluation Systems

significant part*effectiveness labels in June REP collection

2012-2013

2013-2014

Governor’s Council

Evaluation Tool

25%

2014-2015

40%

2015-2016

50%

The Governor’s Council

The Council has five voting members:Deborah Loewenberg Ball, dean of the University of

Michigan School of Education and chair of the CouncilMark Reckase from Michigan State University's

College of EducationNick Sheltrown from National Heritage Academics

in Grand RapidsDavid Vensel, a principal from Jefferson High School

in MonroeJennifer Hammond, a principal from Grand Blanc

High School

Joseph Martineau, Executive Director of BAA, serves on the Council as a non-voting member and is the designee of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Growth Tool

Governor’s Council has to make a recommendation about the tool

Language insinuates ONE tool; but would be prohibitively expensive

We are hoping the Council will recommend more of a “toolbox” Including state, approved national, and approved

local assessments; districts must use a combination of those tools

How some other states have done this

The Governor’s Council Tool

Legislation specifies that the Gov’s Council will recommend “a student growth and assessment tool” that: “Is a value-added model” Includes at least a pre- and post-test Can be used in all content areas and

grades, including currently non-tested grades and content areas.

Meets all requirements for students with disabilities

The Governor’s Council

Public Act No. 102 of 2011 created the Council as a two-year temporary agency, staffed and supported by the Governor's office, and charged with preparing a report by April 30, 2012 that will recommend:

- A student growth and assessment tool;- A state evaluation tool for teachers;- A state evaluation tool for school administrators;- Changes to the requirements for a professional education teaching certificate; and- A process for evaluating and approving local evaluation tools for teachers and administrators.

Who MUST be evaluated?

Based on the code used to report the employee in the REP.

Visit www.michigan.gov/CEPI. Click on CEPI Applications on the left Then, click on Registry of Educational

Personnel on the left Scroll down to EOY 2012 REP Preview Click on EOY 2012 REP Data Descriptions

and go to page 71.

Who MUST be evaluated?

Required Reporting Codes

Assignment Code Description“000AX” through “000ZZ”, (except “00SUB”, “00PAR” and “00200” through “00413”

Teachers

“00192” through “00197” Teachers

“00501” through “00598” Teachers

“Y*0AX” through “Y*0ZZ” (except “Y*014” or “Y*016”)

TeachersParaprofessionals/Aides

“60300” and “60400” Teachers

“70***”, “71***”, “72***”, “73***”, and “74***” (Example: 70100: ISD Superintendent)

Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, Administrators, Principals, and Assistant Principals

Who is OPTIONAL to evaluate?

Optional Reporting Codes

Assignment Code Description“Y*014” or “Y*016” Paraprofessionals/Aides

“00SUB” and “00PAR” Day-to-day substitute staff members

“00200” through “00407” Additional Special Education Staff Members

“00410” through “00413” Migrant Education ProgramParaprofessionals/Aides

“60100” through “60700”, except “60300” and “60400”

Early Childhood Staff Members

“75***” through “79*99” Administrative Positions

“81500” through “99900” Non-Instructional Staff Members

THE TEACHER-STUDENT DATA LINK:WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT COULD BE USED AS PART

OF A DISTRICT EVALUATION SYSTEM

TSDL

Teacher/Student Data Link

New data initiative to link each student to the courses he/she took and to the teachers who taught those courses

Required under State Fiscal Stabilization Fund as a deliverable

Spring Assessments/High school link now available through the Secure Site on in January.

Fall Assessments (Elementary and Middle) TSDL will be available in late February.

State-provided measures

Extremely limited, so a “puzzle pieces” approach must be taken

Districts choose which “pieces” make sense in their local context

Generated for each educator of students in tested grades, regardless of subject taught or type of position.

BUT “growth”, or PLC, doesn’t exist at the high school level, for MI-Access P/SI, ELPA, MEAP-Access, or science, social studies, and writing…

How does the Teacher/Student Data Link Work?

Teachers are linked to coursesStudents are linked to coursesFor each course taught, a teacher has a list of

students who were reported as taking that course.

Linking assessment data to students

Once teachers are linked to students, MDE will provide: Measures of performance level change

for MEAP and MI-Access FI in reading and mathematics for each teacher where available (regardless of subject taught) in grades 4-8.

Measures of student proficiency in writing, science, social studies, reading and mathematics for each teacher where available (regardless of subject taught).

Performance Level Change (“growth”)

Year X Grade Y MEAP

Performance Level

Year X+1 Grade Y+1 MEAP Performance LevelNot

ProficientPartially

Proficient Proficient Adv

Low Mid High Low High Low Mid High Mid

NotProficient

Low M I I SI SI SI SI SI SIMid D M I I SI SI SI SI SIHigh D D M I I SI SI SI SI

PartiallyProficient

Low SD D D M I I SI SI SIHigh SD SD D D M I I SI SI

ProficientLow SD SD SD D D M I I SIMid SD SD SD SD D D M I IHigh SD SD SD SD SD D D M I

Advanced Mid SD SD SD SD SD SD D D M

Teacher: Sally SmithStudent Name

Math Reading Writing Science Social Studies Math PLC Reading PLCJohnny Jones NP PP PP A NP Maintain DeclineCarol Crawford P A A P P Improve Sig ImproveTammy Fay PP P NP P PP Sig Decline Maintain

Student Proficiency Level Student Growth

List for Each Teacher

Draft Data Provided to Districts

Will not generate aggregate report for each teacher because:

• Need to adjust each list based on rules like student attendance, subject taught match, etc.

• Aggregate data could be taken as “teacher effects” which would be an incorrect use of the data.

General Timeline

Spring assessment data 2011 and fall assessment data 2011 will attribute to teachers from the 2010-2011 school year

“Feeder school” for fall assessment data

Using Performance Level Change (PLC) Data

These are general guidelines/suggestions—NOT REQUIREMENTS OR FORMAL RECOMMENDATIONS!!

In the 2011-2012 school year, MDE will work with districts in pilot programs to research the most valid way to use PLC and other assessment data in value-added models and educator evaluation systems.

This year, simply providing PLC data linked to teachers to districts for integration into local systems.

One Possible Method

Step #1: Weight the PLCs to give educators more credit for more student improvement and to take away credit for declines.

One possible rating system:

Sig. Improv

Improve Maintain Decline Sig. Decline

Proficient 2 1 1 -1 -2Not Proficient 2 1 0 -1 -2

Possible Method (cont’d)

Could adjust the weights if desired—more/less credit for SI or SD, etc.

Another possibility: If the student scored in the “Advanced” category in the previous year, and is still in the “Advanced” category, award them a weight of “improving” even if they maintained or declined.

Step #2: Determine thresholds

Look at your current data; what percentage of your students show improvement (I or SI)? Show declines (D or SD)?

What is a reasonable standard amount of growth you would expect teachers to show?

Example: Determining Thresholds

In Sunshine School: 30% of students either had a PLC of I or SI in

the previous year For a teacher to be considered effective for this

portion of the evaluation, he/she must have at least 30% of students “improving” (using the weighted PLC approach)

For a teacher to be considered “highly effective,” he/she must have 40% of students improving

Step #3: Calculate average PLC

Apply rules regarding which students “count” toward a teacher’s evaluation (i.e. attendance rules)

Weight each PLC (using pre-determined weighting scheme)

Sum the weighted values and divide by the number of students

Student Math PL PLC Weighted PLC

Johnny 3 SI 2

Tammy 3 I 1

Chloe 2 M 1

Jose 1 M 1

Frank 2 D -1

Sally 2 D -1

Carla 4 M 0

Martin 3 M 0

Number of students:

8

Total WPLC: 3

Using weighted PLC and thresholds

To calculate the teacher’s percent of students demonstrating growth, divide Weighted PLC by number of students: 3/8 = 37.5%

If target for “effective” was 30% of students showing growth, teacher met target

Teacher did not meet target for “highly effective” (40% of students improving)

Use this as the “growth” component of a multi-measure evaluation system

Weighted PLC Tool

Tool to be used alongside your TSDL for math and reading in grades 4-8.

Allows you to plug in the count of students at each performance level.

Automatically calculates the Weighted PLC like in the example above.

Filter the TSDL file and enter in the number of students in each Performance Level and Performance Level Change Category.

Specific directions are provided within the tool.

Sample Components of Evaluation

Cautions

Must base targets on data; need to set targets that are attainable but also challenge educators to improve student learning

Make decisions about the extent (if at all) reading and math growth should count in subjects other than reading and math

Make decisions about which students contribute; need firm business rules that apply to all!

Use other measures and factors!

Integrating Growth Carefully

Use in conjunction with other measures

Use other types of growth too (i.e. portfolios, rubrics, performance-based assessments) particularly in non-tested subjects and grades—and for special populations.

Integrating Growth (again)

Can be used more qualitatively too—set general guidelines/targets, but use it to inform the decision

Consider the measures that may already be in place in your district that are meant to show growth and develop a rules around that data

NOTE: This will change depending on what is legislated in the governor’s council…. But for now….

MDE web site for Ed Evals

www.michigan.gov/baa Click on the Educator Evaluation tab on the left to

access materials, resources, and links

Contact Information

Carla Howe Olivaresolivaresc@michigan.gov517.241.2884

Educator Evaluation Conference on February 29, 2012 at the Lansing Center. More info at www.miem.org