Teacher Evalua,on Data -...
20
Teacher Evalua,on Data Exploring the Rela,onship Between Teacher Evalua,on and Student Growth
Transcript of Teacher Evalua,on Data -...
Teacher Evalua,on Data
Exploring the Rela,onship Between Teacher Evalua,on and Student
Growth
Exploring the Data
3322..55%% Percent of students who were not proficient on the ELA and Math End-of-Grade assessments
1199..66%% Percent of students who did not graduate from high school
6688..00%% Percent of students who were not proficient on the eighth grade NAEP Reading assessment
6677..00%% Percent of students who were not proficient on the eighth grade NAEP Reading assessment
2200..55%% Percent of schools that did not make expected growth with students
1188..99%% Percent of teachers who did not make expected growth with students
Exploring the Data 11..66%% Percent of teachers who were less than proficient on Standard One of the NCEES
22..55%% Percent of teachers who were less than proficient on Standard Two of the NCEES
22..44%% Percent of teachers who were less than proficient on Standard Three of the NCEES
11..99%% Percent of teachers who were less than proficient on Standard Four of the NCEES
22..55%% Percent of teachers who were less than proficient on Standard Five of the NCEES
Exploring the Data
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Standard One
Standard Two
Standard Three
Standard Four
Standard Five
Standard Six
Consider this school in NC:
Percentage of Teachers Rated Proficient or Be?er
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Standard One
Standard Two
Standard Three
Standard Four
Standard Five
Standard Six
Exploring the Data Consider this school in NC:
Percentage of Teachers Rated Proficient or Be?er
Exploring the Data
There is a disconnect between outcomes for students and
outcomes for teachers.
Why do you think this disconnect exists in many of our schools in
the state?
Evalua,on and Growth
Evalua,on and Growth
Evalua,on and Growth
Evalua,on and Growth
Evalua,on and Growth
Evalua,on and Growth
Digging into the Data Large Urban District
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5
Percentage of Teachers in RaDng Categories
DisDnguished
Accomplished
Proficient
Developing
Not Demonstrated
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Standard 6
Exceeds Expected Growth
Meets Expected Growth
Does Not Meet Expected Growth
Digging into the Data Large Mixed District
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5
Percentage of Teachers in RaDng Categories
DisDnguished
Accomplished
Proficient
Developing
Not Demonstrated
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Standard 6
Exceeds Expected Growth
Meets Expected Growth
Does Not Meet Expected Growth
Digging into the Data Small Mixed District
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5
Percentage of Teachers in RaDng Categories
DisDnguished
Accomplished
Proficient
Developing
Not Demonstrated
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Standard 6
Exceeds Expected Growth
Meets Expected Growth
Does Not Meet Expected Growth
Digging into the Data Small Rural District
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5
Percentage of Teachers in RaDng Categories
DisDnguished
Accomplished
Proficient
Developing
Not Demonstrated
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Standard 6
Exceeds Expected Growth
Meets Expected Growth
Does Not Meet Expected Growth
Understanding the Data
• Districts are very similar in how they evaluate teachers – there are few differences between Urban and Rural districts, regardless of size.
• The category of performance with the greatest percentage of teachers is Accomplished – approximately 50% of the teachers in the state fall into this category.
• Approximately 14% of teachers across the state did not meet expected growth with their students.
• On average, one percent of teachers across the state are designated as Developing.
• Approximately 15% of the teachers across the state exceeded expecta,ons for student growth.
Inter-‐Rater Reliability
• Inter-‐rater reliability, inter-‐rater agreement, or concordance is the degree of agreement among raters.
• A lack of agreement among raters indicates that either the scale is defec,ve or that raters need addi,onal training.
• Three opera,onal defini,ons of agreement: • Reliable raters agree with each other about the exact ra,ngs
to be awarded. • Reliable raters agree with the “official” ra,ng of a
performance. • Reliable raters agree about which performance is be?er and
which is worse.
Understanding Bias
Edward Thorndike The Halo Effect
The halo effect or halo error is a cogni,ve bias in which one's judgments of a person’s character can be influenced by one's overall impression of him or her. It can be found in a range of situa,ons from the courtroom to the classroom and in everyday interac,ons.
Overcoming Bias
• We all carry bias into the evalua,on system. Bias is inherent in the human condi,on, it is not a character flaw.
• Understanding that we have biases is an important step in elimina,ng them from our prac,ce.
• Training is very helpful in reducing bias from the evalua,on system – the second half of this convening is targeted toward helping becoming more accurate raters.
