Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School...
-
Upload
stephen-allen -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School...
![Page 1: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting
Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D.
Division of School Effectiveness
August 29, 2014
![Page 2: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Division of School Effectiveness Office of Educator Services – Mary Hipp Office of Instructional Practices and
Evaluations – Briana Timmerman Office of School Leadership – Bruce Moseley Office of School Transformation – Jennifer
Morrison Office of Virtual Education – Bradley Mitchell
![Page 3: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting
Briana Timmerman, Ph.D.
Office of Instructional Practices and Evaluations
August 29, 2014
![Page 4: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Expanded Educator Evaluation System Guidelines http://ed.sc.gov/agency/se/Educator-Evalu
ation/
Preamble explaining intent and philosophy of teacher professional growth
Organized by requirements of ESEA waiver (to prevent restrictions of NCLB)
![Page 5: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Principal evaluation Current PADEPP Standards 1-9 (50%)
School-wide value-add measures (50%)
![Page 6: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Teacher Evaluation Rubric-based Observations and
professional practice (50%) Student growth over school year
(30%) Classroom Value-add (tested grades
/subjects) Student Learning Objectives (non-tested
grades / subjects) District Choice (20%)
![Page 7: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) Locally created standards-based student
growth target May be school or district-wide or
individual for each teacher Specific, Measureable, Aspirational but
Realistic, Time-specific Uses at least two time periods per
student (beginning/end of school year), more data points are better
![Page 8: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Types of Value-Added
Classroom value-added The average growth of all tested students
for a given teacher
School-wide value-added – OPTIONAL The average growth of all the state-tested
students in a school.
![Page 9: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Value-Add Measures growth rather than achievement
0 = students grew the expected amount
Grew more than expected
Grew less than expected
![Page 10: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
“Well, that’s fine for general education teachers, but what about special populations?”
Honors students vs. struggling students?Students taught by special education teachers?
![Page 11: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Academic growth is not affected by student abilities
![Page 12: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Academic growth is not affected by student special needs
![Page 13: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Your Students All SC studentsHow is that predicted growth
calculated?
![Page 14: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Each individual student’s growth for the year is predicted using the actual growth of other similar students from past
years.
![Page 15: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
The 4th grade scores of students who had 3rd grade scores that were the same as my student
a7
a5
Expected growth is the average growth experienced by similar students.
Time
Test
sco
res
![Page 16: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
What is Value-added?
2012 achievement 2013 achievement
References: Meyer & Dokumaci (2009); Wiley (2006)
Expected achievement
Actual achievement
Value-added by that teacher
![Page 17: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Gain Average Expected Growth – Average
Actual Growth
So if the gain metric is zero, students met expected growth targets.
![Page 18: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Default Educator Effectiveness = students met expected growth.
![Page 19: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
• 50% of his class scored as “proficient”
• On average, his class made the expected amount of growth.
2011 2012
Actual = Expected Value-added score = 3
How does this play outin the classroom?
Avera
ge s
core
of
class
Mr. Sterling has an average class.
![Page 20: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
• 95% of her students scored “proficient”
• BUT Only 5% made expected growth.
2011 2012
Expected
Actual
Value added score < 3
How does this play outin the classroom?
Avera
ge s
core
of
class
Ms. Draper has Honors students.
![Page 21: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
• Only 5% of her students scored as “proficient”
• But 95% made larger gains than expected.
Actual
Expected
Value-added
score >3
How does this play outin the classroom?
2011 2012
Ms. Olsen is in a struggling school.
Avera
ge s
core
of
class
![Page 22: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Less than expected growth, Value-add score is 1or 2
Sco
res
Time
VA 5
VA 4
VA 2
VA 1
VA 3
Expected growth = 3
More th
an expect
ed gro
wth,
Value-a
dd score
is 4
or 5
Less than expected growth, Value-add score is 1or 2
![Page 23: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Value-added is associated with positive long-term student outcomes:
• Improved college attendance—A series ofhigh-value-added teachers may double or even triple college attendance rates.
• Higher salaries in adulthood—Having onehigh-value-added teacher is associated with an additional $50K in lifetime earnings per student ($1.5 million for class of 30 students).
Reference: Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff (2011)
![Page 24: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
ReferencesBoyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Teacher preparation and student
achievement (NBER Working Paper Series 14314). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood (NBER Working Paper Series 17699). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects (NBER Working Paper Series 13617). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1996). Why don’t schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. Journal of Human Resources, 32 (3), 505–520.
Gordon, R., Kane, T., & Staiger, D. O. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using performance on the job (Hamilton Project Discussion Paper). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2009). The effects of NBPTS certified teachers on student achievement. Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
Hershberg, T., Simon, V. A., & Kruger, B. L. (2004). The revelations of value-added. The School Administrator, 61, 10–14.
Koretz, D. (2008). A measured approach. American Educator, Fall, 18–39.
Meyer, R. & Dokumaci, E. (2009). Value-added models and the next generation of assessments. Austin, TX: Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management.
National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE, 2005). Evaluating value-added: Findings and recommendations from the NASBE Study Group on value-added assessments. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Wiley, E. W. (2006). A practitioner’s guide to value-added assessment. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
![Page 25: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Special considerations for Induction Teachers Encourage student growth to be
measured even in first year because it will help the teacher to make better instructional decisions and grow professionally.
Teachers in non-tested grades and subjects are likely to need extra assistance with SLOs / data literacy
![Page 26: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Induction year(s) If a teacher struggles in achieving
student growth, recommend additional Induction years.
Recommend negative summative evaluation decisions be made with at least three years of growth data.
![Page 27: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Questions/Discussion
![Page 28: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Value-Added Measures use Growth not Achievement
Why?
![Page 29: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Growth vs. Achievement
Achievement• Measures performance at a single point in time.• Heavily influenced by family and socio-economic factors.• Educators have no control over a student’s incoming achievement status (“uneven
playing field”)
Growth• Compares the same
students to themselves over time.
• Entering achievement level (demographics) don’t affect measure of teacher effectiveness.
(“level playing field”)
![Page 30: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Achievement is affected by demographics
![Page 31: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Achievement is affected by demographics
![Page 32: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Academic growth is not affected by demographics
![Page 33: Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D. Division of School Effectiveness August 29, 2014.](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022042703/56649ede5503460f94bef224/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Academic growth is not affected by achievement