Www.engageNY.org Caveat: These training materials include some items from the anticipated changes...

www.engageNY.org

Caveat: These training materials include some items from the anticipated changes from enactment of amendments to Education Law 3012-c proposed in February 2012 with the Executive Budget and Settlement of Litigation. To the extent that language in these

training materials differs from the regulatory language ultimately adopted to conform to the statute, the language in the regulation controls.

© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions

Student Learning ObjectivesMr. Fred Cohen

Dr. Valerie C. D’Aguanno

Dr. Robert Greenberg

Mrs. Laverne Mitchell

www.engageNY.org© 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center

*Please see caveat© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions

Our Trip to Albany ~ Your Trip to BOCES

2



SED’s April Training Objectives• Understand how teacher evaluation promotes teacher

growth and development

• Understand the expectations for evidence, interpretation of evidence, and scoring of teacher practice

• Use a quality rating system to improve and ensure the rigor and comparability of SLOs

• Address implementation issues related to SLOs

• Understand the nuances of the indicators/elements of the frameworks for refining evidence collection, alignment and scoring

• Understand how teachers of ELLs and SWD are observed using the rubrics

• Collaborate with colleagues3



TLE Training StatusRequired Elements for training of evaluators and lead evaluators (30.2-9)

ElementsTeaching

Standards

Evidence Based

Observ’n

Student Growth &

Value Added

Use of state

approved rubrics

Assess. Tools

State & Local

measures achieve.

State Instruct Report’g System

Scoring Method.

Evaluate ELLs & SWDs

Content# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IRR

Module 1 X X X X

Module 2 X X X

Module 3 X X X

Module 4 X X X X X

Module 5 X

Module 6 X X X X

4



TLE Training StatusRequired Elements for training of evaluators and lead evaluators (30.2-9)

ElementsTeaching

Standards

Evidence Based

Observ’n

Student Growth &

Value Added

Use of state

approved rubrics

Assess. Tools

State & Local

measures achieve.

State Instruct Report’g System

Scoring Method.

Evaluate ELLs & SWDs

Content# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IRR

Module 1 X X X X

Module 2 X X X

Module 3 X X X

Module 4 X X X X X

Module 5 X

Module 6 X X X X

Module 7 X X

5



Today’s Agenda

• Look at evaluating teachers of ELLs and SWDs

• Introduction to SLO rubric/checklist• Implementation timeline considerations

• Statewide Instructional Reporting System

6



Meeting the Needs of ALL Learners element 9

Report on “Teacher Evaluation in Effective Schools and Classrooms for ALL Learners” written by a committee convened by AFT

• Committee of experts outlined four conditions necessary for all students, including students with disabilities and ELLs, to be successful

1. All Learners and Equal Access2. Individual Strengths and Challenges and Supporting Diversity3. Reflective, Responsive, and Differentiated Teaching Strategies4. Culture, Community, and Collaboration

(Ell Experts: Diane August, Ph.D., Delia Pompa, Diane Staehr Fenner, Ph.D., Giselle Lundy-Ponce; Students with disabilities experts: Peter Kozik and Spencer Salend)

• NYSUT rubrics and modified ASCD rubrics were analyzed for alignment to the four conditions – strong alignment was determined

Document is being written that will detail the four conditions and include recommendations for teacher evaluation systems7



Meeting the Needs of ALL Learners element 9Part I: Article discussion“Moving beyond standardized test scores in evaluating special education teachers”

Read the article selections:• Highlight areas of interest as you read• Discuss the following questions as a small group

1) How do the articles address the role of all students in teaching and learning?

2) What are the implications for how teachers plan and deliver

instruction? 3) What are the implications for teacher observation?

8



Meeting the Needs of ALL Learners element 9

Part IIIn your groups, review one standard (NYSUT – 3, 4,

5) or domain (ASCD – 2, 3) in your selected rubric.

• Which particular elements [ASCD] or indicators [NYSUT] are critical for an observer to focus on in order to assess the teacher’s skill at meeting the needs of all learners including:

• English Language Learners• Students with Disabilities• Students who perform significantly below grade level

9



SLO..LY

We turn….

10



SLO Template

All SLOs MUST include the following basic components:

Population

These are the students assigned to the course section(s) in this SLO - all students who are assigned to the course section(s) must be included in the SLO. (Full class rosters of all students must be provided for all included course sections.)

Learning Content

What is being taught over the instructional period covered? standards? Will this goal apply to all standards applicable to a course or just to specific priority standards?

Interval of Instructional

Time

What is the instructional period covered (if not a year, rationale for semester/quarter/etc)?

Evidence What specific assessment(s) will be used to measure this goal? The assessment must align to the learning content of the course.

BaselineWhat is the starting level of students’ knowledge of the learning content at the beginning of the instructional period?

11



SLO Template – Pg. 2

Target(s)

What is the expected outcome (target) of students’ level of knowledge of the learning content at the end of the instructional period?

HEDI

How will evaluators determine what range of student performance “meets” the goal (effective) versus “well-below” (ineffective), “below” (developing), and “well-above” (highly effective)?

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

EFFECTIVE DEVELOPING INEFFECTIVE

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Rationale

Describe the reasoning behind the choices regarding learning content, evidence, and target and how they will be used together to prepare students for future growth and development in subsequent grades/courses, as well as college and career readiness.

12



SLO – Grade 2 Sample

- SLO – Grade 2 ELA- Roster- Baseline data

13

http://www.nassauboces.org/Page/1250




SLO – Global History II Sample

- SLO – Global History II- Roster- Baseline data

14





Introduction to the Rubric

15




16




17



Rating the HEDI Criteria – Quality Rating 3Meets all of the following: • Meets Quality Rating 2 criteria.• Requires 80% or more of students,

including special populations, to meet their individual goals to earn 9 points (minimum rating in the “effective” category).

18



Selecting a model: HEDI Scale

Who is HEDI and why is she bothering me now????

HEDI Scoring

How will evaluators determine what range of student performance “meets” the goal (effective) versus “well-below” (ineffective), “below” (developing), and “well-above” (highly effective)

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE DEVELOPING INEFFECTIVE

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0



Example: Science Teacher (SED Guidance document)




No decision is more crucial than defining the target. A

teacher’s overall evaluation is based on how this task is

accomplished.



Science Teacher Example



Science Teacher Example

Where did this evaluator’s score come from?

Who was consulted?

On what logic, formula, or experience was it based?



Middle School Physical Education Example



Example:7th Grade Social Studies

SLO Subject BaselineTARGET (As

Approved by Evaluator

Actual Results Evaluator SLO Score

7R Social Studies classes with 23 & 27 students

A district created pre-test.

75% of students will score at least a 65% on the post-test

83% of the students ISP (including special populations) scored at least 65%

• If this were the SLO, what HEDI score would you assign? What is your rationale?

• What problems might you anticipate if you chose 9? Or 17?

• When a target is chosen, the HEDI scale must be a prime consideration. Now imagine the task of

creating one, two, or three SLO’s for 80% of the teachers in your district!



Example:7 Honors Social Studies

SLO Subject BaselineTARGET (As

Approved by Evaluator

Actual Results Evaluator SLO Score

7H Social Studies with 18 & 22 students

A district created pre-test.

85% of students will score at least a 85% on the post

92% of the students ISP (including special populations) scored at least 85%



Translating SLO’s to the HEDI Scale

Now, suppose you have to create a target for “x” number of SLO’s, for each teacher you must calculate the 20% Local, the 60% of teacher evaluation aligned to NYS teaching standards, you must put it all together to calculate each teacher’s overall composite score, have a way to report it all to SED ?

• How? • Who? • When? • Oh No!

AND

AND

AND



Translating SLO’s to the HEDI Scale

Each department/teacher has his or her own language within the target that must be translated into a HEDI score. Having a translation tool would become your Rosetta Stone.

The BOCES Translation Scale is for use when the SLO model selected uses percent of students as the descriptor for the target as you have seen in the examples today.

Once you accept the suggested template, setting the target percent becomes your focus.



Suggested Scale Translating Targets to the HEDI Scale



Suggested Implementation Calendar

34

3-7

10-14

17-21

24-28

1-5

8-12

15-19

22-26

29-2

5-9

12-16

19-23

26-30

3-7

10-14

17-21

24-28

31-4

7-11

14-18

21-25

28-1

4-8

11-15

18-20

25-1

4-8

11-15

18-22

25-29

1-5

8-12

15-19

22-26

29-3

6-10

13-17

20-24

27-31

School SLO Trainings Teachers Collect Baseline DataNYSAA AdministrationTeachers Submit SLOs for ApprovalAdministrators Approve SLOs for ImplementationAdministrators Monitor and Support Teacher EffectivenessDistrict/School Formative TestingAdministrators Conference with Teachers on Progress of High School Regents Exams Administered3-8 ELA State TestingNYSESLAT - Speaking3-8 Math State TestingNYESLAT - Listening, etc.Grade 4 & 8 Science - LaboratoriesOther SLO Summative Assessments Administered

Grade 4 & 8 Science - Written

Final Student Summative Results for All SLOs Reviewed

Teacher Summative Conferences and Evaluations Completed by Administrators* (pending any student data still to arrive)

March April May September October November December January February 2012 2013

www.engageNY.org

Caveat: These training materials include some items from the anticipated changes from enactment of amendments to Education Law 3012-c proposed in February 2012 with the Executive Budget and Settlement of Litigation. To the extent that language in

these training materials differs from the regulatory language ultimately adopted to conform to the statute, the language in the regulation controls.

© 2012, Teaching Learning Solutions © 2012, Community Training and Assistance Center

Thank you for your participation!

Www.engageNY.org Caveat: These training materials include some items from the anticipated changes...

Documents

Transcript of Www.engageNY.org Caveat: These training materials include some items from the anticipated changes...