SB 10 191 The Great Teachers and Leaders

SB 10 -191: The Great Teachers and Leaders Act State-wide definition of “effective” teacher and principal in Colorado Academic growth, using multiple measures accounts for half of an educator’s annual evaluation Professional practice accounts for half of an educator’s annual evaluation Non-probationary status is earned based upon three consecutive years of demonstrated effectiveness Non-probationary status may be lost based upon two consecutive years of ineffectiveness

Framework for Teacher Evaluation

Teacher Measurement Framework Measures of professional practice (Standards I-V) selected by the district that meet state technical guidelines, including formal observations plus at least one other measure Multiple measures of student academic growth (Standard VI) that are appropriate for the Teacher’s teaching assignment, that represent the best available assessments for that assignment, that also include growth scores shared among groups of Teachers, and that meet state technical guidelines.

What are MAPs? M – Measures of A – Academic P – Progress MAP Mathematics, Reading, Language Usage, and Science achievement tests are aligned to the content of state standards. MAPs are computerized adaptive tests. • The program adjusts item difficulty based on how well the student has answered the questions up to that point. • As the student answers correctly, items become more difficult. If the student answers incorrectly, questions become easier. • Each student takes a test with a level of item difficulty that reflects his or her functional achievement level • The result is a test with a low standard error of measurement and a high level of technical reliability.

How is MAP Used as an Interim Benchmark Assessmen t? A standardized interim measure like MAP, well aligned with our outcome measure (CSAP/TCAP), can: • Help teachers benchmark student progress on standards through the school year and predict spring CSAP/TCAP performance, • Provide support for teacher ratings of student proficiency, • Alert teachers to the possibility that their understandings of “proficient” may be too high or too low as compared with CSAP/TCAP performance levels, and • Provide a benchmark for the outcomes of classroom assessments and a focus for standards-based instruction.

Is MAP Aligned with CSAP/TCAP? NWEA has performed CSAP-to-MAP alignment studies every few years with analyses that include more than 40, 000 Colorado students across over 500 schools. The two tests prove to be very highly correlated in Reading and Math in studies with large groups of students. MAP tests predict student performance on spring CSAP to a very high degree.

Who is MAP Tested in CCSD? Students participate in Reading and Math MAP testing three times per year-Fall, Winter, and Spring • Language and Science tests are optional Elementary: • All students, grades 2 -5. Middle School: • All students, grades 6 & 7. • At grade 8, all Special Education students, identified Gifted & Talented students, and students scoring “below Proficient on the prior year’s CSAP. High School: • Special Education students, grades 9 -10.

D 2 D: Year-Round Data Inquiry

D 2 D: My Data Story – The What My 2010 – 2011 Data Story Positive • Consistency: my SGP median is above 50 for general education and honors (Note: collapsed classes: one SGP for honors, and one for general) Needs Improvement • However, in years past, my SGP’s were 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s…what happened? Group of kids or me? (Note: individual SGP’s for each class) • Higher growth moving kids from US to PP, and from • Low growth with keeping students Advanced PP to P (doing well with “catch-up kids”) (especially in honors not doing well with “keepup, let’s go above and beyond kids”) • 90% of my males in honors made growth gain • 33% of my minority students (one student) made • Targeted intervention kid update for writing: • Student 1: PPlo to PP (made growth, not target • My scores for general ed. and honors still show an (number tested 10) gain) • Student 2: PPhi to Plo (made gain ) • Student 3: PPhi to PPhi (gained 8 points, no target gain) • Student 4: PP to Plo (made gain ) • Student 5: PPhi to P (made gain ) their target gain in honors (number tested 3) Achievement Gap between my white/Asian students and my black/Hispanic students…that sucks! (comparing percentages in the bottom left corner of my data sheet)

D 2 D: My Data Story – So What Now? “I plan to actively seek out people in the building to…plan more rigorous lessons for my advanced students…also would like to have more vertical alignment conversations with 7 th and 8 th grade honors teachers, so I (know) where my honors kids should be moving” “Continue to identify and target students of color to (make sure) they meet their target gain…isolate specific skills that prevent them from being proficient”

D 2 D: My Data Story – The What “Now that I take a close look at my personal data from last year…. I am a ‘rock star’ with moving kids from the lower ranges to being proficient writers…I am not as skilled with my advanced students keeping them advanced writers” “As I look at last year’s data, I am questioning what is working and what I need to change”

D 2 D: Ongoing PLT/PLC Meetings Foundational Steps • Review norms • Bring materials Data Question • Greatest challenge for my/our students • Past and current level of performance Action Step • Goal(s) (for short term) Select Interventions Indicators of Results Set Agenda for next Meeting • What do we need to do before the meeting? • What student work do we bring?

Measurement Issues Attributing student growth and performance to specific teachers Assessments for “non state-tested” teachers Consistency of student achievement data at the teacher level • Impact of small “N’s” Observation/documentation of teaching performance • Inter-rater reliability • Consistency of artifacts