STUDENT GROWTH AND TEACHER EVALUATIONSgomasa.org/wp...Growth-and-Evaluations-02-14-18-1.pdfSTUDENT...

STUDENT GROWTH AND TEACHER EVALUATIONS

FEBRUARY 14, 2018GARY J. COLLINS, ESQ.

LORIE E. STEINHAUER, ESQ.PATRICIA M. POUPARD, ESQ.

Notice

These slides reflect general legal standards and are not intended as legal advice for specific situations.

Future legal developments may affect these topics.

This document may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Collins & Blaha, P.C.

02/14/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 2

Topics Covered

■ Evaluations, The Revised School Code, and the Tenure Act

■ National Comparison of Student Growth■ Student Growth and Michigan Law■ Student Growth Evaluation Model

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 302/14/2018

Introduction: The Student Growth-Teacher Effectiveness Divide

02/14/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 4

■Median proficiency in M-STEP Math achievement (2015-17)

Source: MIData

Introduction: The Student Growth-Teacher Effectiveness Divide(cont’d)

02/14/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 5

■Teacher evaluation ratings (2015-17)

Source: MIData

Introduction: The Student Growth-Teacher Effectiveness Divide(cont’d)

■Divide into small groups to reflect on the following:– What type of curve do we want for teachers,

relative to student growth?

02/14/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 6

Presenter

Presentation Notes

NOTES

Introduction: The Student Growth-Teacher Effectiveness Divide(cont’d)■ Small groups (cont’d):

– What impact will the teacher-student growth curve have in an evaluation conducted under 2018-19 rules (i.e. 40% student growth portion)?

– What impact will the curve have on layoff and recall?– What impact will the curve have on providing

information to teachers for future professional growth?

02/14/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 7

Presenter

Presentation Notes

NOTES

EVALUATIONS, THE REVISED SCHOOL CODE,

AND THE TENURE ACT

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 802/14/2018

Teacher Performance Improvement and Layoff/Recall - Recommendations■ The Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness recommends:

– Use student growth tools in a way that balances the spirit of the law with limitations of current assessments

– Focus educator and student attention on learning

■ Collins & Blaha, P.C. also recommends:– Emphasize performance improvement: ensure student growth

informs teacher practice not layoff/recall – Maximize impact of classroom observation on the overall rating– Allow for possibility of an “Effective” overall rating, even with a

minimally effective score on one student growth measure© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 902/14/2018

Evaluation System Design: Using Differentiating/Stabilizing Measures ■ Differentiating: A growth measure which produces differentiation in in

the vast majority of teachers. (Almost any commercially available growth measure provides differentiation)– A non-state assessment measure created by the district may be

tailored to increase or reduce the impact of differentiation

■ Stabilizing: A growth measure on which the vast majority of faculty will likely be rated “Effective” or above (Currently in use in almost all Michigan schools.)– Examples include: Commons Assessments; Alternative Assessments;

and IEP

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 1002/14/2018

Recommendations (cont’d)

■ Select “stabilizing” student growth measures

■Consider alternative assessments that provide for a range of teacher achievements

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 1102/14/2018

Presenter

Presentation Notes

NOTES

Integration of StatutesINTEGRATION OF SECTION 1249, SECTION 1248, AND THE TENURE ACT

TENURE ACT• Performance evaluations of tenured and probationary teachers must be conducted pursuant to

Section 1249.• A teacher’s performance rating impacts his or her ability to attain and maintain tenure.

SECTION 1248• Decisions regarding layoff and recall must be based on retaining effective teachers.• Teacher effectiveness is measured by the performance evaluations required and described in

Section 1249.SECTION 1249

• School districts must use performance evaluations to inform decisions regarding promotion, retention, and the removal of ineffective tenured and untenured teachers.

• A teacher’s evaluation shall incorporate the criteria enumerated in Section 1248(1)(b)(i) to (iii). Includes the criteria listed in Section 1248(1)(b) as part of a teacher’s performance evaluation.

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 12See Michigan Teacher and Administrator Evaluations (2016), p 26.

02/14/2018

NATIONAL COMPARISON

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 1402/14/2018

Student Growth: National Issue

Source: State of the States: Evaluating Teaching, Leading and Learning. National Council on Teacher Quality. November, 2015© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 1502/14/2018

Test Adoption

Source: State of the States (2015)© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 1602/14/2018

Mandated TestingTEST STATE(S)

ACT Kentucky (HS), South Carolina (HS), Wisconsin (HS), Wyoming (HS)

PARCC Arkansas, Colorado, Washington DC, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island

SMARTER BALANCEDCalifornia, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada (3-8), New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin (3-8)

ACT ASPIRE Alabama, South Carolina (3-8)

ALASKA MEASURES OF PROGRESS Alaska

AZMERIT Arizona

END OF YEAR COURSE TESTS/END OF INSTRUCTION EXAM Missouri (HS), North Carolina , Oklahoma (HS)

FLORIDA STANDARDS ASSESSMENT Florida

GEORGIA MILESTONES ASSESSMENT Georgia

IOWA ASSESSMENTS Iowa

ISTEP Indiana

KCCRS-ALIGNED ASSESSMENTS KansasSour

ce: S

tate

of t

he S

tate

s: E

valu

atin

g Te

achi

ng, L

eadi

ng a

nd L

earn

ing.

Nat

iona

l Cou

ncil

on T

each

er Q

ualit

y.

Nov

embe

r, 20

15

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 1702/14/2018

Mandated Testing (cont’d)

TEST STATE(S)KEYSTONE EXAMS Pennsylvania (HS)K-PREP Kentucky (3-8)MAP Missouri (3-8)MINNESOTA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENTS MinnesotaM-STEP MichiganNEBRASKA STATE ACCOUNTABILITY NebraskaNEW YORK ASSESSMENTS New York OKLAHOMA CORE CURRICULUM TEST Oklahoma (3-8)PA SYSTEM OF SCHOOL ASSESSMENT Pennsylvania (3-8)

PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS FOR WYOMING STUDENT Wyoming (3-8)STANDARDS OF LEARNING VirginiaSTATE OF TEXAS ASSESSMENTS OF ACADEMY READINESS TexasSTUDENT ASSESSMENT OF GROWTH & EXCELLENCE UtahTNREADY Tennessee

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 18

Sour

ce: S

tate

of t

he S

tate

s: E

valu

atin

g Te

achi

ng, L

eadi

ng a

nd L

earn

ing.

Nat

iona

l Cou

ncil

on T

each

er Q

ualit

y.

Nov

embe

r, 20

15

02/14/2018

Teacher Effectiveness: A Troubling Pattern – 3% less than effective? ■ Nationally: Pattern in states that have adopted new

performance-based teacher evaluation systems■ Michigan: 97% of teachers are rated “Effective” or

better; 3% less than effective■ Ratings not easily reconciled with student

achievement/growth or variations in teacher experience

Source: State of the States: (2015); MIData02/14/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 19

Variables Which May Affect Student Growth■ Impact of declining enrollment, teacher shortage and public

pressures■ Economically-disadvantaged districts vs others■ Districts with higher proportion of ELL students or those with

learning disabilities■ Assessment limitations

– Some teachers: only one year of student achievement available – impact on students

■ Downsides of teaching to the test■ Michigan’s laws requirement that layoff/recall decisions be “based

on” effectiveness reduces variation in teacher ratings■ Probationary teachers may be disproportionately impacted by

student growth measures© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 2002/14/2018

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Teacher Effectiveness/Student Growth

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 2102/14/2018

Teacher Effectiveness/Student Growth (cont’d)


33.4%

53.95%

25.75% 28%

0

30.7%27.15%

49%

25.5%

2%

19.5%

11%

21.95%

29.1%

56%

16.1%

7.8%4.1%

18%

42%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

M-STEP M Sci SocS ELA Evals

3-yr median student achievement distribution vs teacher effectiveness (all grades, 2015-17)

not prof part prof prof adv

02/14/2018

Highly Effective

Effective

Layoff and Recall Skews Evaluations: Evaluation Systems are Aligned with Layoff and Recall

Source: State of the States (2015)

Teacher Ratings in Selected States

STATEPERCENT OF TEACHERS RATED

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE OREFFECTIVE

PERCENT OF TEACHERS RATEDNEEDS IMPROVEMENT OR

INEFFECTIVESCHOOL YEAR

Florida 97.7 2.3 2013-14

Michigan 98 2 2012

Tennessee 98 2 2013


Sour

ce: S

tate

of t

he S

tate

s: E

valu

atin

g Te

achi

ng, L

eadi

ng a

nd L

earn

ing.

Nat

iona

l Cou

ncil

on T

each

er Q

ualit

y.

Nov

embe

r, 20

15

02/14/2018

New Mexico: Not Skewed by Layoff and Recall

3.60%5.40%

3.20%

22.60% 23.30% 22.40%

47.10%

42.70% 42.20%

24.20% 24.80%27.60%

2.50% 3.80% 4.50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2015 2016 2017

Teacher effectiveness ratings (New Mexico, 2015-17)Ineffective Minimally Effective Effective Highly Effective Exemplary

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 24Source: State of the States (2015), New Mexico Dep’t of Education

02/14/2018

New York: Not Skewed by Layoff and Recall

STATEPERCENT OF TEACHERS RATED

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE OREFFECTIVE

PERCENT OF TEACHERS RATEDNEEDS IMPROVEMENT OR

INEFFECTIVESCHOOL YEAR

New York 95 5 2012-2013

New York 84 16 2014-2015

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 25Source: State of the States (2015)

02/14/2018

Discretion: Basis for Layoff and Recall

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C.

Required layoff and recall decisions to be “based on effectiveness.”

Implies that school districts must make layoff and recall decisions based on a serial ranking of each individual teacher on the basis of the teacher’s effectiveness rating

Requires layoff and recall decisions to be “based on retaining effective teachers.” MCL 380.1248(1)(b).

Allows school districts to make layoff and recall decisions by grouping teachers on the basis of effectiveness label and making layoff and recall decisions from within these groups.

HOU

SE B

ILL

4627

(AS

INTR

ODU

CED)

PUBLIC ACT 102 O

F 2011 (ENACTED)

2602/14/2018

Discretion: Basis for Layoff and Recall


■ Why might school districts prefer to group teachers, based on a qualitative effectiveness rating instead of numerical scores?• Allows more variance within a group/range• Reduces the trainer-evaluator differences • Minimizes the compounding of errors• More flexible personnel decisions

2702/14/2018

Discretion: Additional Factors in Layoff/Recall


■ For purposes of layoff and recall, teacher effectiveness is measured by the performance evaluation system under Section 1249. MCL 380.1248(1)(b).

■ Section 1248 also specifies that personnel decisions must be made based on factors including “significant, relevant accomplishments and contributions” and relevant special training.” Id.

■ While often overlooked, these additional factors allow school districts flexibility to limit teacher placement for purposes of layoff and recall.

2802/14/2018

STUDENT GROWTH

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 2902/14/2018

Student Growth in Teacher Evaluations (2015)


12

3

14Higher than Michigan (>40%)Equal to Michigan (=40%)Less than Michigan (<40%)

NUMBER OF STATES INCORPORATING STUDENTGROWTH FOR TEACHER EVALUATIONS

EQUAL TO MICHIGAN

Source: State of the States: Evaluating Teaching, Leading and Learning. National Council on Teacher Quality. November, 2015

02/14/2018

Student GrowthMEASURING AND INCLUDING STUDENT GROWTH DATA IN TEACHER EVALUATIONS

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19+

25% of a teacher’s annual year-end evaluation must be based on student growth data

40% of teacher’s annual year-end evaluation must be based on student growth and assessment data.

Student growth and assessment data is determined using multiple measures that may include: Student learning objectives; Achievement of IEP goals; National or local assessments; Research-based growth measures; or Alternative assessments.

For core content areas in grades and subjects in which state assessments are administered, 20% of evaluation must be measured using state assessments.

Remaining 20% must be measured using multiple research-based growth measures; alternative assessments that are rigorous and

comparable across schools within the district or academy;

student learning objectives; nationally normed or locally adopted assessments that

are aligned to state standards, or based on achievement of individualized education

program goals02/14/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 31Se

e M

CL 1

249(

2); M

ichi

gan

Teac

her a

nd A

dmin

istra

tor E

valu

atio

ns (2

016)

, pp

36, 3

9, 4

0.

School Year Rating Elements


60%20%

20%

2018-2019 School Year Rating Elements

Observation Student Growth with Core Student Growth without Core

75%

25%

2017-2018 School Year Rating Elements

Observation Student Growth

Student growth and assessment data is determined using multiple measures that may include:Student learning objectives;• Achievement of IEP goals;• National or local assessments;• Research-based growth measures; or• Alternative assessments.

Evaluation Tool

Evaluation Tool

Student growth:• Student learning objectives; • Achievement of IEP goals; • National, local or alternative

assessments; or • Research-based growth

For core content areas in grades and subjects in which state assessments are administered –student growth measured using state assessments.

02/14/2018

Student Growth Exemption

■ Section 1249(2).(b) If there are student growth and assessment data available for a teacher for at least 3 school years, the annual year-end evaluation shall be based on the student growth and assessment data for the most recent 3-consecutive-school-year period. If there are not student growth and assessment data available for a teacher for at least 3 school years, the annual year-end evaluation shall be based on all student growth and assessment data that are available for the teacher.


See Michigan Teacher and Administrator Evaluations (2016), p 41.

02/14/2018

Student Growth Exclusion

■ Section 1249(2).(i) The performance evaluation system may allow for exemption of student growth data for a particular pupil for a school year upon the recommendation of the school administrator conducting the annual year-end evaluation or his or her designee and approval of the school district superintendent or his or her designee, intermediate superintendent or his or her designee, or chief administrator of the public school academy, as applicable.


See Michigan Teacher and Administrator Evaluations (2016), p 41.

02/14/2018

State Assessments by Grade Level (2018)


Grade Level Subject Areas

English Language Arts Math Science Social Studies ELL

3 M-STEP M-STEP

WID

A AC

CESS

(Gra

des K

-12)

4 M-STEP M-STEP

5 M-STEP M-STEP M-STEP M-STEP

6 M-STEP M-STEP

7 M-STEP M-STEP

8 M-STEP M-STEP M-STEP M-STEP

9 PSAT (Reading/Writing) PSAT

10 PSAT (Reading/Writing) PSAT

11 SAT (Reading/Writing) SAT M-STEP M-STEP

12 SAT (Reading/Writing)* SAT* M-STEP* M-STEP*

*may take if eligible02/14/2018

Other MDE-Recommended Assessments

■ Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment Project (“MAEIA”)– Provides model assessments for all grades in dance, music, theatre and visual

arts (See MDE website).■ MDE has developed early literacy/math benchmark assessments for grades K-2

– Administered in the Fall and Spring– K-3 students must be given an ELA assessment from an MDE-approved list

within the first 30 days of school MCL 380.1280f(2)9a).– Because the students are already required to take ELA assessments, the district

could use the results of these assessments to calculate a portion of student growth.

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 3602/14/2018

Other MDE Recommended Assessments (cont’d)


Renaissance Learning: STAR Early Literacy

Reading TestIowa Assessments –

Survey Version Lexia RAPID Assessment

I-Ready Diagnostic Reading Assessment Edmentum Exact Path Degrees of Reading Power

(Questar)

AIMSweb Plus NWEADistrict-wide assessment developed by department

chairs or central office administrators

02/14/2018


MODELING STUDENT GROWTH IN EVALUATION

MODELS

02/14/2018

A Sample Public School District Student Growth Rubric

39

SchoolNumber of Teachers

Teachers Rated Highly Effective Rated Effective Rated Minimally

EffectiveRated

Ineffective

Percent of teachers that are Highly

Effective and Effective

A 15 3 7 5 0 10/15 67%

B 19 2 11 6 0 13/19 68%

C 19 0 12 4 3 12/19 63%

D 23 6 14 3 0 20/23 87%

E 42 18 21 3 0 39/42 93%

F 57 10 46 1 0 56/57 98%

G 10 9 1 0 0 10/10 100%

Preschool 2 1 1 0 0 2/2 100%

TOTALS 187 49 113 22 3 162/187 87%

Aggregate Student Growth and Assessment – Effectiveness Data

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C.02/14/2018

Example: Rubric for State Assessment Portion“This rubric must be completed by the individual for each Student Growth Indicator that is submitted. Included with this rubric must be the following items (related supporting documents that clearly identify the data sources and/or measures used for the Teacher Annual Year End Performance Evaluation).

Student Growth Indicator Effectiveness Score (Please circle):

02/14/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 40

80% and above of students meeting the identified student growth goal 4.0 (Highly Effective)

60-79% of students meeting the identified student growth goal 3.0 (Effective)

40-59% of students meeting the identified student growth goal 2.0 (Min. Effective)

39% and below of students meeting the identified student growth goal 1.0 (Ineffective)”

Example (cont’d)■ In this example, although 25 teachers were noted to

be less than effective in student growth, only 3 teachers were deemed less than effective in their overall evaluation rating.

■ The principal’s compared the student growth data ratings with classroom observation ratings, and found 22 out of 25 teachers were engaged in good educational practices.

■ If data is properly used, it can inform teacher growth.

02/14/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 41

Evaluation System Design: Uniformity■ 40% of the overall evaluation “shall be based on” student growth (2018-19)

■ Wide discretion in determining what measures are used and how scored

■ Sections 1248 and 1249 authorize only a district-level evaluation policy– I.e. Ensure the district evaluation system uniformly measures student

growth – and teacher effectiveness

■ E.g. 2nd grade math teacher in Elementary A is evaluated using the same standards as 2d grade math teacher in Elementary B

■ Uniformity helps ensure District-level evaluation ratings reported to MDE are accurate and consistent

■ Uniformity may be found in the core content areas in grades and subjects in which state assessments are administered (i.e. represents 50% of the growth component)

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 4202/14/2018

Evaluation System Design : Use Flexible Rating Scales■ Set up a tailored scoring scale

– Scale ranges need not be equally distributed – May reflect desired excellence (narrow “Highly Effective”

interval) and pragmatics (wider “Effective” interval)


Measure Scores Equal Wt. Scale Adjusted

Highly Effective 4 3.0-4.0 3.6-4.0Effective 3 2.0-2.9 2.6-3.5

Minimally Effective 2 1.0-1.9 2.0-2.5

Ineffective 1 0.0-0.9 0.0-1.902/14/2018

Evaluation System Design: Flexibility in the Student Growth Portion

■ An overall student growth rating as low as “Minimally Effective” may still permit the classroom observation portion to control final evaluation score

■ Student growth measures may be designed so that an “Ineffective” rating on either 20% portion of student growth will not result in an overall student growth segment rating of “Ineffective”

02/14/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 44

Evaluation System Design (cont’d)


INEFFECTIVE MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE HIGHLY

EFFECTIVE

INEFFECTIVE Ineffective Minimally Effective

Effective Effective

MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE Minimally Effective

Minimally Effective Effective Highly Effective

EFFECTIVE Minimally Effective

Minimally Effective Effective Highly Effective

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE Effective Effective Effective Highly Effective

02/14/2018

Classroom Observation Portion Weight = 0.6Student Growth PortionWeight = 0.4

Score = 1

Score = 4

Score = 3

Score = 2

Refer back to flexible rating scales, Equal Weight scale.

Evaluation System Design (cont’d)

02/14/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 46

INEFFECTIVEObservation

MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE

Observation

EFFECTIVE Observation

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

Observation

INEFFECTIVE Ineffective Ineffective Minimally Effective Effective

MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE Ineffective Minimally Effective Effective Effective

EFFECTIVE Ineffective Minimally Effective Effective Highly Effective

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE Minimally Effective Effective Effective Highly Effective

Refer back to flexible rating scales, Adjusted scale.

Classroom Observation Portion Weight = 0.6Student Growth PortionWeight = 0.4

Evaluation System Design: Using Differentiating/Stabilizing Measures ■ Differentiating: A growth measure which produces differentiation

in in the vast majority of teachers. (Almost any commercially available growth measure provides differentiation)– A non-state assessment measure created by the district may be

tailored to increase or reduce the impact of differentiation

■ Stabilizing: A growth measure on which the vast majority of faculty will likely be rated “Effective” or above (Currently in use in almost all Michigan schools.)– Examples include: Commons Assessments; Alternative

Assessments; and IEP© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 4702/14/2018

Evaluation System Design (cont’d)■ Recommendations

– 2018: 40% of the overall evaluation is “based on” student growth measures (20% state assessment, 20% locally-devised measures)

– Emphasize teacher growth, rather than layoff and recall■ Non-assessment indicators in the local student growth portion

– Exception: if achievement is low and an alternative assessment may demonstrate positive growth

– Turn numerical scores to qualitative rating categories and tailor rating scales

– Use “Stabilizing” factors where appropriate– Maximize impact of classroom observations– Minimize the impact of a less-than-Effective student growth score

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 4802/14/2018


DISCUSSION

02/14/2018

Group Discussion

■ What local, state, national assessments already exist in the District that may be used to fit the district purpose?– Which are differentiating? Stabilizing?

■ What other assessments must be developed or purchased to fulfill purpose?

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 5002/14/2018

Group Discussion (cont’d)

■ Share a challenge you may encounter in your implementation of growth measures.

■ Share an opportunity student growth measures may provide at your school or district.

© 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 5102/14/2018

STUDENT GROWTH AND TEACHER EVALUATIONS

QUESTIONS?GARY J. COLLINS, ESQ.

LORIE E. STEINHAUER, ESQ.PATRICIA M. POUPARD, ESQ.

STUDENT GROWTH AND TEACHER EVALUATIONSgomasa.org/wp...Growth-and-Evaluations-02-14-18-1.pdfSTUDENT...

Documents

Transcript of STUDENT GROWTH AND TEACHER EVALUATIONSgomasa.org/wp...Growth-and-Evaluations-02-14-18-1.pdfSTUDENT...