Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting

Cindy Van Buren, Ph.D.

Division of School Effectiveness

August 29, 2014

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

Clemson University School of Ed Faculty Meeting

Briana Timmerman, Ph.D.

Office of Instructional Practices and Evaluations

August 29, 2014

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)

Principal evaluation Current PADEPP Standards 1-9 (50%)

School-wide value-add measures (50%)

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%)

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

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.

Value-Add Measures growth rather than achievement

0 = students grew the expected amount

Grew more than expected

Grew less than expected

“Well, that’s fine for general education teachers, but what about special populations?”

Honors students vs. struggling students?Students taught by special education teachers?

Academic growth is not affected by student abilities

Academic growth is not affected by student special needs

Your Students All SC studentsHow is that predicted growth

calculated?

Each individual student’s growth for the year is predicted using the actual growth of other similar students from past

years.

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

What is Value-added?

2012 achievement 2013 achievement

References: Meyer & Dokumaci (2009); Wiley (2006)

Expected achievement

Actual achievement

Value-added by that teacher

Gain Average Expected Growth – Average

Actual Growth

So if the gain metric is zero, students met expected growth targets.

Default Educator Effectiveness = students met expected growth.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

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

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)

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.

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

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.

Questions/Discussion

Value-Added Measures use Growth not Achievement

Why?

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”)

Achievement is affected by demographics

Achievement is affected by demographics

Academic growth is not affected by demographics

Academic growth is not affected by achievement