S.T.A.T. Year Three Mid‐Year Evaluation · 2018-08-13 · Data Sources •S.T.A.T. Teacher...

S.T.A.T. Year Three Mid‐Year Evaluation

Dr. Steven M. RossDr. Jennifer R. Morrison

1

S.T.A.T. Evaluation Model

2

Professional Development Measurable Outcomes Goals

Classroom Environment

Teacher Practice

Digital Content

Administrators

Classroom Teachers

S.T.A.T. Teachers

Student Engagement

P21 Skills

Student Achievement

Graduate GloballyCompetitive

Students

MAP

PARCC

Year 1+

Year 2+

Years 3/4+Year 1+

Data Sources

• S.T.A.T. Teacher Program Survey (BCPS survey)

• Classroom observations in Lighthouse Elementary Schools (10), Phase 2 Elementary Schools (10), Lighthouse Middle Schools (7), Phase 2 Middle Schools (7), Lighthouse High Schools (3) (OASIS‐21 Instrument)

• Digital content usage (BCPSOne)

• Student Focus Groups

3


4


Classroom EnvironmentClassroom

Environment

Teacher PracticeTeacher Practice

Digital ContentDigital

Content

Administrators

Classroom Teachers

S.T.A.T. Teachers

Student Engagement

Student Engagement

P21 SkillsP21 Skills

Student Achievement


Students

MAP

PARCC

Survey: PD Helpfulness

+

+

+

+

6.37%

+

5.64%

8.64%

22.54%

11.53%

16.76%

28.19%

67.15%

81.62%

75.53%

60.28%

Independent learning

Individual/1:1 support

Small group

Large group

not at all helpful only slightly helpful somewhat helpful very helpful+ < 5.0%

5

Survey: Desired Future PD Mode

9.60%

8.46%

42.37%

26.58%

37.84%

23.02%

31.97%

9.33%

38.92%Training workshop(s)

Developed teacher development plan

Learning walk or instructional walk-through

Analysis of data

Observation of another teacher's classroom

Study group or lesson study

Observation of model teaching or conducting demonstration lesson

Developed an SLO

Other6

S.T.A.T. Teacher Program

• Classroom teachers positive towards the S.T.A.T. teacher– Knowledgeable and supportive– Available for support and resources

• Needs:– Clear definition S.T.A.T. teacher roles and responsibilities– Pacing of PD– Professionalism

7


8



Teacher Practice

Digital Content

Administrators

Classroom Teachers

S.T.A.T. Teachers

Student Engagement

Student Engagement

P21 SkillsP21 Skills

Student Achievement


Students

MAP

PARCC

S.T.A.T. Experience

2015‐2016 2016‐20172014‐2015

LH Grades 1‐3

LH Grades K, 4, 5Ph 2 Grades 1‐3LH Grade 6

Ph 2 Grades K, 4, 5Ph 2 Grade 6LH Grade 7LH Grades 9‐12

9

Observation Rating Scales

• Not observed: Not observed in class• Rarely: Received little emphasis/time in class• Somewhat/Occasionally: Receives modest emphasis/time in class

• Frequently: Receives substantial emphasis/time in class• Extensive(ly): Highly prevalent in class

10

Impact on Classroom Environment

40.00%

50.70%

50.00%

31.25%

28.17%

34.38%

28.75%

21.13%

15.63%

Year 3 (2016-17) Schools



Display of materials and resources that support independent thinking

Not Observed Somewhat Extensive

+

7.04%

6.25%

47.50%

43.66%

46.88%

48.75%

49.30%

46.88%




Information displayed reflects content being taught

Not Observed General subject Lesson-specific+ < 5.0%

11

Impact on Teacher Practices

15.00%

9.86%

15.63%

21.25%

22.54%

12.50%

37.50%

39.44%

56.25%

20.00%

18.31%

9.38%

6.25%

9.86%

6.25%




Teachers acting as coach/facilitators

Not Observed Rarely Somewhat/Occasionally Frequently Extensively

36.25%

23.94%

25.00%

17.50%

30.99%

21.88%

20.00%

26.76%

34.38%

8.75%

14.08%

15.63%

17.50%

+

+




Teacher presentation

Not Observed Rarely Somewhat/Occasionally Frequently Extensively+ < 5.0%

12

Digital Content Usage

13

6.8

97.2139.7

19.2

641.2

9.959.7

10.9

98.0149.7

23.6

499.1

28.2

131.2

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

Instruction RepositoryContent

Link File Assignment Assessment Other

Aver

age T

iles C

reat

ed

Tile Category

Semester 1 - 2015 Semester 1 - 2016


14


Classroom EnvironmentClassroom

Environment

Teacher PracticeTeacher Practice

Digital ContentDigital

Content

Administrators

Classroom Teachers

S.T.A.T. Teachers

Student Engagement

P21 Skills

Student Achievement


Students

MAP

PARCC

Student Achievement


Students

MAP

PARCC

Impact on Student Engagement

47.50%

36.62%

25.00%

10.00%

16.90%

18.75%

12.50%

9.86%

21.88%

10.00%

22.54%

18.75%

20.00%

14.08%

15.63%




Students using digital tools for learning

Not Observed Rarely Somewhat/Occasionally Frequently Extensively

16.25%

36.62%

9.38%

7.50%

16.90%

15.63%

16.25%

9.86%

28.13%

31.25%

22.54%

31.25%

28.75%

14.08%

15.63%




Students completing independent work

Not Observed Rarely Somewhat/Occasionally Frequently Extensively15

Impact on P21 Skills

62.50%

60.56%

59.38%

6.25%

+

9.38%

10.00%

15.49%

25.00%

11.25%

14.08%

+

10.00%

5.63%

+




Learning incorporates authentic/real world contexts

Not Observed Rarely Somewhat/Occasionally Frequently Extensively+ < 5.0%

16

Student Perceptions of S.T.A.T.

• Appreciate technology – Grading, electronic communication, access to information, organization, creativity

• Mixed views on time spent using– Testing increases time

• Devices used primarily for independent work• Issues with Internet connections, access

17


18



Teacher Practice

Digital Content

Administrators

Classroom Teachers

S.T.A.T. Teachers

Student Engagement

P21 Skills

Student Achievement


Students

MAP

PARCC

Year 1+

Year 2+

Years 3/4+Year 1+

Student Achievement

• Reading/ELA– Upward trend for Lighthouse Grades 1‐3 students– Upward trend for non‐Lighthouse Grades 1‐2

• Mathematics– Upward trend for Lighthouse Grades 1‐3 students– Upward trend for non‐Lighthouse Grades 1‐3 students

• Lighthouse outperforming non‐Lighthouse except Grade 1 Reading

19

Grade 1 Reading: MAP

0102030405060708090

100

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16Perc

enta

ge M

et G

row

th E

xpec

tatio

ns

Lighthouse Schools Non-Lighthouse Schools(n = 97)(n = 10)

(Year 2)(Pre-Program) (Year 1)

20

Grade 2 Reading: MAP

0102030405060708090

100

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16Perc

enta

ge M

et G

row

th E

xpec

tatio

ns


(Pre-Program) (Year 1) (Year 2)

21

Grade 3 ELA: PARCC

0102030405060708090

100

2014-15 2015-16Perc

enta

ge M

et o

r Exc

eede

d G

row

th

Expe

ctat

ions

Lighthouse Schools Non-Lighthouse Schools State(n = 96)

(Year 1) (Year 2)

(n = 10) (n = 866)22

Grade 1 Mathematics: MAP

0102030405060708090

100

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16Perc

enta

ge M

et G

row

th E

xpec

tatio

ns


(Pre-Program) (Year 1) (Year 2)

23

Grade 2 Mathematics: MAP

0102030405060708090

100

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16Perc

enta

ge M

et G

row

th E

xpec

tatio

ns


(Year 2)(Year 1)(Pre-Program)

24

Grade 3 Mathematics: PARCC

0102030405060708090

100

2014-15 2015-16Perc

enta

ge M

et o

r Exc

eede

d G

row

th

Expe

ctat

ions

Lighthouse Schools Non-Lighthouse Schools State(n = 10)

(Year 1) (Year 2)

(n = 96) (n = 866)25

Recommendations

• Narrow S.T.A.T. teacher position expectations, with focus on instructional leadership

• Offer professional development on desired teaching practices• Increase modelling of inquiry‐based and project‐based lessons• Increase opportunities for device use in pairs or small groups• Monitor and proactively address technology glitches

26

Conclusion

• Classroom teachers view S.T.A.T. teacher favorably

• Professional development appears to be influencing teaching practice in accord with the logic model– Active student learning and device use integrated with core teaching practices– Stronger impact as school experience increases

• Students have positive views towards using devices for learning

• Positive trends in student achievement

27

S.T.A.T. Year Three Mid‐Year Evaluation · 2018-08-13 · Data Sources •S.T.A.T. Teacher...

Documents

Transcript of S.T.A.T. Year Three Mid‐Year Evaluation · 2018-08-13 · Data Sources •S.T.A.T. Teacher...