Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation– North Carolina Evaluating North Carolinas Race...

Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina

Evaluating North Carolina’sRace to the Top Initiatives:

An Overview

Collaborative Conference for Student AchievementMarch 21, 2012

Jeni Corn, Friday Institute, NCSUTrip Stallings, Friday Institute, NCSU


NC Race to the Top Evaluation

NC RttT is designed to be a “game changer”A coordinated set of innovative activities and policy reforms designed to collectively improve the performances of students, teachers, leaders, and schools

Evaluation contributes to NC RttT “changing the game” in two ways:

• Program Evaluation: Provide formative information on the implementation of NC RttT initiatives Inform decisions to improve implementation

• Policy Evaluation: Assess – from the perspective of students, teachers, leaders, and schools – the improvements that have occurred as a result of NC RttT initiatives collectively and, to the extent possible, the contributions of specific individual initiatives Inform decisions about sustainability and impacts

2


Focus of the Evaluation

• External evaluation provides objective analysis of the activities described in NC’s RttT grant proposal: Implementation fidelity Short-term outcomes Collective/overall impact

• It is not an evaluation of specific teachers, leaders, or schools

3


NC RttT Evaluation: TeamConsortium for Educational Research and Evaluation-NC (CERE-NC):

SERVE Center, Carolina Institute for Public Policy, and Friday Institute

Steering Committee: Gary Henry, Terri Shelton, & Glenn Kleiman

Principal Investigator: Gary Henry

Management Committee: Trip Stallings, Jessica Anderson, and Julie Marks

Team Leaders: Teacher and Leader Effectiveness – Rod RoseEquitable Supply and Distribution of Teachers and Leaders – Trip StallingsProfessional Development – Jeni CornTurnaround of LEAs and Schools – Charles Thompson Local-Level Implementation and Spending – Eric Houck Overall Impact – Gary Henry and Julie Marks

Other Leadership Roles:LEA Coordinator - Alexa Edwards ([email protected]; 336 315-7436);State Liaison - Trip Stallings ([email protected]; 919 513-8576)

4


NC Race to the Top Evaluation: Key Milestones in Year 1

Spring 2011: Evaluation designed and staffed, and baseline data collection initiated (e.g. interviews with RttT implementation leaders, Teacher & Principal Survey, local expenditures, field work in schools that have undergone turnaround)

Summer 2011: Scopes of work for evaluation of initiatives finalized; Developed, piloted, & trained for instructional observation instruments; ongoing fieldwork

Fall 2011: Completed draft reports and initial briefings for: Baseline analysis of School Turnaround, STEM, distribution of teacher quality, and PD, as well as plans for RLA cost-effectiveness; Began analysis of baseline Teacher & Principal Survey

Winter 2011-12: Conducted briefings on analysis of teacher value-added models; Finalized drafted reports (http://cerenc.org) and presented to SBE; began Y2 SOW activities

5


NC RttT Initiatives: Evaluation Organization1. Teacher and leader effectiveness

Integration of value-added student achievement measures into educator evaluation system

2. Equitable supply and distribution of teachers and leadersTeach for America, NC Teacher Corps, Regional Leadership Academies, Teacher Induction Program, Virtual Public School, Incentives

3. Professional developmentAll professional development activities in support of RttT initiatives, including: PD for standards and assessment, IIS, and data use; and PD delivery capacity-building efforts

4. Turnaround of LEAs and schoolsLow-achieving LEAs and schools; STEM schools

5. Local-level implementation and spending on RttTCloud computing, allocation of RttT funds, cost savings

6. Overall impact of RttT on students, teachers, and school leaders

7. Omnibus survey of teachers and principals

6


1. Teacher and Leader Effectiveness

Purpose of this Evaluation Project• To ensure quality, consistency, and fairness of

new and ongoing teacher and principal evaluation processes through examination of validity and reliability across multiple observational perspectives

• To examine educators’ perspectives on new evaluation standards and the effect of these standards on educators’ practices

7



Evaluation Questions• Have valid and reliable measures of student growth been

identified for inclusion in the teacher and administrator/principal evaluation process?

• Does the revised evaluation process allow for/make meaningful distinctions between teachers’ and administrators’ effective and ineffective performance?

• How do educators view the implementation/rollout of the evaluation process? Does the new evaluation process change educators’ attitudes? Does it change educators’ practices?

• Do performance incentives for teachers in low-performing schools have positive effects on student and teacher outcomes?

8



Evaluation Approaches• Data sources: existing scholarship; quantitative data (including

longitudinal DPI data and survey data collected from principals, teachers, and students); and qualitative data (including teacher and principal interviews, focus group data, and observations of teachers).

Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery A. Teacher and Leader Effectiveness: Evaluation

Preliminary Report: Reliability analysis of multiple VA models 1/2012

Report: Preliminary evaluation of contractor's proposed approach to measuring educator impact on student achievement (based on existing data)

3/2013

Final Report: Evaluation of new EES elements and their implementation 9/2014

B. Teacher and Leader Effectiveness: Incentives

Report: School-level bonuses 8/2013

Report: School-level and individual teacher bonuses 6/2014

Final Report: Summative evaluation 9/2014

9


Purpose of this Evaluation Project• To provide both summative and formative

information about RttT efforts to increase the overall supply and to ensure the equitable distribution of effective educators statewide

10

2. Equitable Supply and Distribution of Teachers and Leaders


Overall Evaluation Questions• What is the nature and quality of the experiences provided

by each of the initiative programs?

• Are students affected by each of these programs better off than students in schools and districts not served by these programs?

• Are these initiatives cost-effective and sustainable?

• To what extent did the initiatives further the goal of having an effective teacher in every classroom and an effective principal in every school?

11



Evaluation Approaches: Not just . . . .

12



Evaluation Approaches: Also . . .

13



Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery (I)A. Evaluation of overall changes in distribution of higher-quality & effective teachers & leaders

Develop baseline estimates of the distribution of higher-quality teachers and school leaders, revised from initial RttT proposal estimates.

4/2012

Develop estimates of changes and trends in the distribution of higher-quality teachers and school leaders.

6/2014

B. Evaluation of Regional Leadership Academies

Cost-effectiveness analyses 2/2012

Final 2012 activity report 2/2013

Final 2013 activity report 2/2014

Final Report 9/2014

C. Evaluation of TFA Expansion & NC Teacher Corps (NCTC)

Report: Characteristics and placement of TFA and NCTC candidates 12/2012

Interim Report: NCTC impact on teacher retention 9/2013

Final Report: Impact, qualitative assessment, and policy recommendations 9/2014

14



Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery (II)D. Evaluation of Induction Program for Novice Teachers

Preliminary report/briefing on 1st year implementation 12/2012

Report: Impact and implementation of the 1st year of the 2-year cycle 7/2013

Final Report: Program effectiveness, implementation, and sustainability 10/2014

E. Evaluation of Strategic Staffing Efforts

Report: Local SS plan and implementation review 9/2012

Report: State SS Y1 & Y2 review 9/2013

Final Report: Summative evaluation of local and state SS 9/2014

F. Evaluation of NCVPS Blended Courses

Initial Report: Estimates of blended course impact on teachers, students 4/2013

Report: Qualitative assessment of Y1 and Y2 course offerings 9/2013

Final Report: Impact, qualitative assessment, and policy recommendations 9/2014

15



3. Professional Development

Purpose of this Evaluation Project• To conduct ongoing analysis of the delivery

and quality of state- and local-level professional development, with the goal of analyzing the impact of the PDI on local capacity, teacher practices, and student achievement.

• We will examine longitudinal education data combined with data collected using a sample of schools approach.

16

Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina 17

Major Evaluation Questions



Evaluation Approaches• Interviews and focus groups • Observations PD, teaching practices, PLCs, local PD Sessions• Research-based review of PD content and delivery, including reviews of the

NCDPI Online Repository and eLearning Portal diagnostics• Data reviews and analyses administrative data, PDI-specific data (PDI

Participation Database data, survey data including PD Exit Surveys, leadership inventory, reflection), NCEES summary data, student data including EOG/EOC, graduation rates; LEA PD expenditure data

• Document reviews LEA PD Action Plans, other PDI-specific documents

Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery First Annual Report 1/2012

Annual Report: Status of PDI 12/2012

Annual Report: Status of PDI 12/2013

Final Report: Impact 9/2014

18



4. Turnaround of LEAs and Schools

Purpose of this Evaluation Project• To understand the extent to which and the ways in

which interventions by the District and School Transformation division (DST) improve outcomes for students in the state’s lowest-performing schools and districts

• To explore the fidelity of implementation of the STEM Schools initiative and examine its impacts on students, teachers, principals, schools, and school networks.

19



Turnaround of LEAs and Schools Evaluation Questions

• What problems are identified in the low-performing schools and districts?

• What are the main intervention strategies that the District and School Transformation unit employs to improve low-performing schools?

• What are the intended mechanisms of improvement?

• How do the strategies work? Do the strategies and mechanisms play out as intended?

• What is the impact of the intervention strategies on intermediate outcomes as well as student achievement and graduation rates?

20


STEM Anchor Evaluation Questions• To what extent have the network of STEM anchor and cluster

schools been implemented as intended?• What are the impacts of the network of STEM anchor and

cluster schools on student and on school-level outcomes and how do these impacts compare with the impacts of other transformation models?

• Can the impacts on student performance be disaggregated by student and school characteristics?

• What mechanisms are put in place for the sustainability and scaling up of the model, or its most successful elements?

21




Evaluation Approaches• DST: 30+ site visits, multiple interviews (over the next three years with

multiple people), observations, focus groups, surveys, artifact review, document analysis, and quantitative analyses.

• STEM: Predominantly qualitative analyses (observations of professional development, site visits to STEM schools, interviews with providers), with quantitative analyses (student and school staff surveys, administrative data).

Key Deliverables and Estimated DeliveryA. Evaluation of District and School Transformation RttT Work

Preliminary Baseline Report 12/2011Report: Formative Assessments of the Efforts to Transform the Lowest-Performing Schools

1/2013

Annual Report 12/2013Final Report: Quantitative and qualitative findings 9/2014

B. Evaluation of STEM Anchor School System DevelopmentBaseline Scan and Year 1 report 12/2011 & 3/2012Year 2 Report 12/2012Year 3 Report 12/2013Year 4 Report 9/2014

22


5. Local-Level Implementation & Spending

Purpose of this Evaluation Project• To determine how Race to the Top funding

is being allocated and used across districts and schools throughout NC

23


Cloud Questions• To what extent does the Cloud reduce state & local expenditures

for technology?• To what extent does the Cloud provide reliable, secure, accessible,

and efficient service?• How satisfied are LEAs with the Cloud Computing infrastructure?

Local Spending Questions• How do local districts spend RttT funds?• Are some local RttT spending patterns associated with higher

student performance in schools and districts?

Local Efficiencies and Savings Questions• Do RttT funds alter costs incurred by the state and districts?

24



Evaluation Approaches• Mixed-method approach, combining document review, interviews,

surveys, and quantitative analysis of administrative data

Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery

Conduct baseline analysis of local education expenditures in preparation for cost analyses, which will specifically include the technology initiative

4/2012

Site reports on local RttT spending; survey findings; baseline productivity report 4/2013

Follow-up to 2012 report; interval and summative productivity report 9/2014

25



6. Overall Impact

Purpose of this Evaluation Project• To provide estimations of the overall impact of RttT-

funded initiatives• To explore under what conditions and circumstances

the initiatives collectively and in various combinations appeared to be most effective, and for whom

• To consider sustainability options beyond the life of the grant

• To track and compare the metrics/goals defined in the proposal

26


6. Overall Impact

Evaluation Questions• Was each RttT initiative implemented as intended?

• What are the overall impacts of RttT on increasing student performance, such as achievement, engagement, attendance, graduation?

• Are the impacts of RttT on student performance larger in some schools/districts than others (for example, high-poverty or low-performing schools)?

• Are some RttT initiatives more effective in increasing student performance than others?

• How can the successful RttT initiatives be sustained after 2014?

27


6. Overall Impact

Evaluation Approaches

• The Overall Impact evaluation will consider selected quantitative and qualitative data and results from all initiative-level evaluations, as well as cross-initiative and all-inclusive data

Key Deliverables and Estimated DeliveryOverall cost and sustainability analysis of the RttT initiatives 12/2013

Final Report: Synthesis and policy recommendations across initiatives 9/2014

28


7. Omnibus Teacher and Leader Survey

• Administered to probability sample of 358 schools across the state – a selection of schools that is reflective of the state as a whole

• Assesses “Instructional Climate”

23 dimensions on leadership and organizational conditions affecting instruction

• Baseline Survey completed – Fall 2011

• Next administration in progress now (Feb/Mar 2012) and annually throughout RttT Evaluation

29


Initial Findings (http://cerenc.org)

• DST: Evidence of success in providing high-quality assistance to most targeted low-achieving schools. Evidence of several undermining factors in the schools that made little or no progress.

• STEM Baseline: STEM schools serve greater proportions of lower-income, minority, and rural-based students. Student performance is higher in high-minority STEM (vs high-minority non-STEM) schools.

• STEM Formative: Most Y1 implementation activities were high-quality; however, delays in selecting schools for the network and in agreeing on curriculum development expectations hindered optimal implementation.

• VAM: Three VA models – a fixed-effects model, an EVAAS model, and a random effects model – outperformed all others; a final model – a different EVAAS model – was not testable.

30


Evaluation Results Spotlight:Professional Development

Findings: Implementation and Support

•Cross-Division collaboration at NCDPI

•2,212 attendees at 6 Summer Institutes

•1,457 (66%) completed post-Institute survey; 83% rated Institute as valuable or very valuable.

31

Report pp. 28-42


Recommendations: Implementation and Support

1.Encourage and strengthen cross-divisional work

2.Provide more pre-Institute information

3.Reorganize content sessions

4.Reconceptualize LEA planning sessions

5.Foster more collaboration across LEAs/charter school

32

Report pp. 42-47



Recommendations: Implementation and Support (cont.)

6.Address concerns about ongoing, post-Institute support7.Incorporate greater attention to technology8.Build on strengths of the best resources9.Review approaches to addressing diversity10.Improve locations and logistics

33

Report pp. 42-47



Findings: Teachers’ Baseline Data•Elementary and Region 8 (Western Region) teachers most satisfied with prior PD•TWCS items were very consistent with data from the PD dimensions of the RttT Omnibus Survey

34

Report pp. 53-58



Findings: Principals’ Baseline Data•Concerned about funding for PD•Planning greater use of cost-effective online and blended approaches •Using NCTEP to inform PD planning•Before Institutes, about 50% of sample schools had received PD on one or more of: new standards, formative and summative assessments, and/or use of data to improve instruction

35

Report pp. 58-62



Recommendations: Baseline Data

1.Extend PD activities already in place in many LEAs

2.Focus on developing coherent programs that address major PD needs

3.Differentiate PD for elementary, middle, and high school teachers

4.Harness growing interest in online approaches to PD, collaboration, mentoring, and resources.

5.Provide additional support for schools and districts rated low on PD on the TWCS and Omnibus Survey

36

Report p. 11


Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation– North Carolina Evaluating North Carolinas Race...

Documents

Transcript of Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation– North Carolina Evaluating North Carolinas Race...