Connecting the DPI Dots: CCSS, Balanced Assessment and Educator Effectiveness Updates January 2012 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Connecting the DPI Dots: CCSS, Balanced Assessment and Educator Effectiveness Updates January 2012 PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 6f546b-ZDE0Y



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Connecting the DPI Dots: CCSS, Balanced Assessment and Educator Effectiveness Updates January 2012

Description:

Connecting the DPI Dots: CCSS, Balanced Assessment and Educator Effectiveness Updates January 2012 – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:50
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 55
Provided by: DebG152
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Connecting the DPI Dots: CCSS, Balanced Assessment and Educator Effectiveness Updates January 2012


1
Connecting the DPI Dots CCSS, Balanced
Assessment and Educator Effectiveness
Updates January 2012
2
Common Core State Standards Updates January 2012
3
Our Goal
  • The Common Core State Standards are the impetus
    for
  • A more connected, systems-change approach to
    school/district innovation and improvement
  • Clear definitions of high quality and college
    and career readiness
  • True instructional change for ALL educators and
    instructional leaders
  • Increased student LEARNING

4
(No Transcript)
5
School-wide Implementation Review
  • An infrastructure is in place that ensures that
    every student accesses grade level CCSS.
  • Educators and administrators know and understand
    the content of the CCSS.
  • Literacy strategies are used to deepen students
    understanding of each discipline.
  • A comprehensive system is in place so students
    develop the dispositions and skills to prepare
    them for college and career.
  • Formative and summative classroom assessments are
    used to gauge student progress and make
    instructional decisions.

6
Items currently in progress
  • CCSS School-wide Implementation Review
  • Disciplinary literacy Google sites in each
    content area
  • Planning underway for content support for
    educators in ELA and mathematic
  • Partnership between PK-12 and IHEs to assist in
    common language, approach, priorities around CCSS
    implementation

7
Some things to do TODAY
  • Download WI CCSS Guidance documents for ELA and
    mathematics and begin content area PLC
    conversations
  • Download WI CCSS Guidance documents for
    disciplinary literacy and begin a conversation
    about DL with your school-level leadership team
  • Download and examine the SBAC Content
    Specifications and consider the implications for
    curriculum and instruction
  • Visit www.readwisconsin.net and join a community
    of practice to implement the CCSS to improve
    reading instruction

8
Getting SMARTER The Future of Online Balanced
Assessment in Wisconsin January 2012
9
Today
  • SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium
  • Background
  • System overview
  • Updates
  • Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium
  • WIDA Consortium

10
Changes in Assessment
  • We know the WKCE, WAA-SwD, and ACCESS for ELLs
    assessments are going away.
  • What will replace them? How will the new
    assessments be different?

Current Assessment New Assessment Changes
WKCE SMARTER Balanced Assessment System Spring administration online adaptive new item types
WAA-SwD Dynamic Learning Maps Spring administration online based on learning maps
ACCESS for ELLs ASSETS for ELs Online ELP standards based on CCSS
11
An Introduction
12
29 Member States
13
Assessment System Components
Summative assessments benchmarked to college and
career readiness
Common Core State Standards specify K-12
expectations for college and career readiness
Teachers can access formative processes and tools
to improve instruction
All students leave high school college and
career ready
Interim assessments that are flexible, open, and
provide actionable feedback
14
Assessment System Components
  • Assessment system that balances summative,
    interim, and formative components for ELA and
    mathematics
  • Summative Assessment (Computer Adaptive)
  • Mandatory comprehensive assessment in grades 38
    and 11 (testing window within the last 12 weeks
    of the instructional year) that supports
    accountability and measures growth
  • Selected response, short constructed response,
    extended constructed response, technology
    enhanced, and performance tasks
  • Interim Assessment (Computer Adaptive)
  • Optional comprehensive and content-cluster
    assessment
  • Learning progressions
  • Available for administration throughout the year
  • Selected response, short constructed response,
    extended constructed response, technology
    enhanced, and performance tasks
  • Formative Processes and Tools
  • Optional resources for improving instructional
    learning
  • Assessment literacy

15
Timeline
16
Future of Alternate Assessment in Wisconsin
17
General Supervision Enhancement Grant (GSEG)
2010-2014
  • IDEA funded grant awarded by the Office of
    Special Education Programs, at the U.S. Dept. of
    Education.
  • Four Years
  • Two consortia were awarded grants
  • National Center and State Collaborative
  • Dynamic Learning Maps

18
http//dynamiclearningmaps.org/
19
DLM Consortium Member States
20
(No Transcript)
21
Outcomes of the Consortium
  • New extended standards and achievement level
    descriptors based on the Common Core State
    Standards for ELA and Math
  • Learning maps, which will include tasks of
    various proficiency levels leading to formative
    assessment and tools for educators.
  • Annual summative assessment (used for
    accountability purposes)- online, adaptive
  • Professional development modules for teacher
    training
  • Advanced feedback and reporting systems
    (including growth modeling)

22
Assessment System Components
  • An assessment system that provides a summative
    (point-in-time) assessment as well as formative
    and interim assessment components for ELA and
    mathematics throughout the year.
  • Computer adaptive summative assessment
  • Grades 38 and 11 (testing window in the Spring)
  • Selected response, constructed response,
    technology enhanced instructionally relevant
    items
  • Computer adaptive formative and interim tools
  • Based on learning maps
  • Administered throughout the year
  • Professional development modules for educators
  • Advanced feedback and reporting systems

23
Contacts
  • Kristen Burton
  • Office of Educational Accountability
  • kristen.burton_at_dpi.wi.gov
  • Erin Faasuamalie
  • Special Education Team
  • erin.faasuamalie_at_dpi.wi.gov

24
For more information
  • Ongoing updates are available in the OEA
    Newsletter
  • Produced quarterly during the school year
  • Available online http//dpi.wi.gov/oea/dacnwltrs.
    html
  • SBAC Quarterly Reports
  • Available on OEAs SBAC webpage
    http//dpi.wi.gov/oea/sbac.html
  • General SBAC info www.smarterbalanced.org
  • Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium
  • http//dynamiclearningmaps.org
  • WIDA Consortium (ASSETS for ELs)
  • http//wida.us.index.aspx

25
An Update on Educator Effectiveness in the
State of Wisconsin January 2012
26
Design Team
  • American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (Bryan
    Kennedy)
  • Association of Wisconsin School Administrators
    (AWSA) (Jim Lynch)
  • Office of the Governor (Michael Brickman)
  • Professional Standards Council (PSC) (Lisa Benz)
  • Wisconsin Association of Colleges of Teacher
    Education (WACTE) (Julie Underwood)
  • Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges
    Universities (WAICU) (Kathy Lake)
  • Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB)
    (John Ashley)
  • Wisconsin Association of School District
    Administrators (WASDA) (Miles Turner)
  • Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC)
    (Mary Bell)

27
Guiding Principles
  • An educator evaluation system must deliver
    information that
  • Guides effective educational practice that is
    aligned with student learning and development.
  • Documents evidence of effective educator
    practice.
  • Documents evidence of student learning.
  • Informs appropriate professional development.
  • Informs educator preparation programs.
  • Supports a full range of human resource
    decisions.
  • Is credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and
    uniform across districts.

28
Definition of Effective Educators
  • Effective Teacher An effective teacher
    consistently uses educational practices that
    foster the intellectual, social and emotional
    growth of children, resulting in measurable
    growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.
  •  
  • Effective Principal An effective principal
    shapes school strategy and educational practices
    that foster the intellectual, social and
    emotional growth of children, resulting in
    measurable growth that can be documented in
    meaningful ways.

29
Seamless Transitions
30
Teachers
  • Foundation for
  • Teacher Practice
  • Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support
    Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards
  • Framework for
  • Teacher Evaluation
  • Charlotte Danielson
  • Domains and Components
  • Domain 1 Planning and Preparation
  • Domain 2 The Classroom
  • Environment
  • Domain 3 Instruction
  • Domain 4 Professional
  • Responsibilities

31
Principals
  • Foundation for
  • Principal Practice
  • 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure
    Consortium (ISLLC) Standards
  • Framework for Principal Evaluation
  • Subordinate functions of ISLLC standards

32
Equivalency Review Process
  • Districts may create their own rubrics of
    educator practice.
  • Districts must apply to the State Superintendent
    for approval through an equivalency review
    process.

33
Educator Practice
  • Teacher Practice
  • Each component should be evaluated on multiple
    sources of evidence. These could include
  • Observations of teacher practice
  • Review of documents
  • Surveys/data
  • Discussions with the teacher
  • Principal Practice
  • Each component should be evaluated on multiple
    sources of evidence. These could include
  • Observations of principal practice
  • Review of documents
  • Interviews with stakeholders
  • Surveys/data
  • Discussions with the principal

34
System Weights
Student Growth
Educator Practice
35
Models of Practice Detail (50 of evaluation)
36
Student Outcome Detail (50 of evaluation)
Models of Practice
Student Learning Objectives
District Choice
37
Student Outcome WeightsPK- 8
  • State assessment, district assessment, SLOs, and
    other measures
  • SLOs and other measures

38
Student Outcome Weights9 -12
  • District assessment, SLOs, and other measures
  • SLOs

39
Educator Effectiveness System Matrix
Student Outcomes Student Outcomes Student Outcomes Student Outcomes Student Outcomes Student Outcomes
Models of Practice 1 2 3 4 5
Models of Practice 1
Models of Practice 2
Models of Practice 3
Models of Practice 4
Models of Practice 5
  • Asterisks indicate a mismatch between educators
    practice performance and student outcomes and
    requires
  • a focused review to determine why the mismatch
    is occurring and what, if anything, needs to be
    corrected.

40
Category Ratings
  • Developing does not meet expectations and
    requires additional support and directed action
  • Effective areas of strength and improvement
    addressed through professional development
  • Exemplary expand expertise through professional
    development and use expertise in leadership

41
Educator Effectiveness Timeline
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
42
Educator Effectiveness Timeline
2011-12
Timeline January June 2012
Work groups meet once or twice per month
43
Fundamental Tasks in Stage 1
  • Teacher Practice rubric
  • Principal Practice rubric
  • Student/School Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
  • Data Systems Development Management Framework
  • Pre-Pilot Process
  • Evaluation Process and Manuals

44
Teacher Practice Rubric
  • Work Group Representatives
  • DPI
  • WCER
  • Stakeholder representatives
  • teachers
  • principals
  • district leaders
  • Actions Products
  • Rubric review adaptation.
  • Draft teacher rubric developed by March 2012
  • Final rubric completed by
  • May 2012
  • Identification of evidence sources determined by
    end of April 2012
  • Evidence rubric weight scoring determination
    process completed by end of June 2012
  • Evidence collection forms processes completed
    by end of June 2012

45
Principal Practice Rubric
  • Work Group Representatives
  • DPI
  • WCER
  • Stakeholder representatives
  • teachers
  • principals
  • district leaders
  • Actions Products
  • Rubric review adaptation.
  • Draft principal rubric developed
    by March 2012
  • Final rubric completed by May
    2012
  • Identification of evidence sources determined by
    end of April 2012
  • Evidence rubric weight scoring determination
    process completed by end of June 2012
  • Evidence collection forms processes completed
    by end of June 2012

46
Student/School Learning Outcome
  • Work Group Representatives
  • WCER
  • Stakeholder representatives
  • teachers
  • principals
  • district leaders
  • Actions Products
  • Create checklist for selecting creating SLOs
    by reviewing existing versions (Denver,
    Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Austin, Rhode Island)
    modify as necessary.
  • Scoring rubric beginning with guidance developed
    previously by other districts, and adapting as
    necessary, create a rubric for evaluators
    (principals and/or content experts) to use in
    evaluating SLO evidence submitted by teachers.
  • Process document create a document (perhaps a
    short and a long version) which describes the
    entire process for creating SLOs, gathering
    evidence, and rating evidence, with timelines for
    each step in the process. This document could
    form the basis for school-level, district-level,
    or regional trainings around the SLO process.

47
Data Systems Development Management Framework
  • Work Group Representatives
  • DPI
  • WCER
  • Stakeholder representatives
  • teachers
  • principals
  • district leaders
  • Actions Products
  • Status report due in June 2012 containing curren
    t status of statewide SIS when specific areas of
    functionality within SIS
    will be available when a pilot
    version of full system
    implementation will be
    possible for a select group of
    districts
  • Preliminary report recommendations regarding a
    digitization tool for capturing and storing
    practice data.

48
Pre-Pilot Process
  • Work Group Representatives
  • DPI
  • WCER
  • External evaluator
  • Actions Products
  • Pre-pilot of SLO process will need to
    include an assessment of the SLO
    process for teachers
    principals SLOs the assessment constructed
    as action research
    designed to maximize
    feedback from teachers
    principals
  • The review of the pre-pilot work will be
    completed by end of June 2012.

49
Evaluation Process Manuals
  • Work Group Representatives
  • DPI
  • WCER
  • Representatives from SLO and educator practice
    teams
  • Actions Products
  • Teacher evaluation manual will encompass the
    process for evaluating teacher practice and the
    student learning objective measures.
  • The draft manual will be
    completed by end of June
    2012
  • Principal evaluation manual will encompass the
    process for evaluating principal practice and the
    school learning objective measures.
  • The draft manual will be
    completed by end of June
    2012

50
Educator Effectiveness Timeline
2012-13
2013-14
All work contingent on funding and resources
51
Evaluator Educator Training
  • A training program will be developed which will
  • Describe both educator practice and student
    outcome data collection and feedback.
  • Explain value-added student outcomes
  • Describe formative and summative evaluation
    processes
  • Explain performance rating categories

52
Voluntary Pilots
  • Diverse school districts will pilot the state
    model (urban, suburban and rural school
    districts).
  • Pilot will be conducted for one full school year.
  • Large districts will pilot test in a sample of
    schools . Smaller districts will pilot test in a
    substantial portion or perhaps all of the
    districts schools.
  • Evaluators and those being evaluated will be
    trained before participating in the pilot test.

53
Pilot Evaluation
  • An external evaluator will evaluate the pilot
    program which will include formative and
    summative feedback on the following
  • Implementation process
  • Understanding and acceptance
  • Reliability
  • Validity
  • Impact on educator practice

54
Contact information
  • DPI Educator Effectiveness webpage at
    http//dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/edueff.html
  • Beverly Cann, DPI Education Consultant at
    beverly.cann_at_dpi.wi.gov or 608-267-9263
About PowerShow.com