1. the teacher student data link (tsdl) 2 the big picture: what are we doing and why does it...
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Teacher Student Data Link (TSDL)
2
The Big Picture: What are we doing and why does it matter?
TSDL Collection Overview Who’s on Your Team: Who you
need & Why you need them Collection Mechanics: The nuts
and bolts of this collection
3
Getting it Right: What tools are available?
Best Practices for the Field: Workgroup recommendations
Digging into the Details: FAQs, Questions & Answers
4
DVD Copies of this presentation are available from Wayne RESA
$10.00 + $4.00 S&H
Contact: Brenda Hose 734-334-1437 [email protected]
6
7
Michigan School Reform Law
Districts are required to conduct annual educator evaluations that include student growth as a significant factor.
8
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF)
Districts are required to report the effectiveness label generated by these evaluations.
9
Michigan School Reform Law
Conduct annual educator evaluations. Include measures of student growth as a significant factor.
10
Locally determine the details of the educator evaluations, the consequences, and the timeline for implementation.
11
Tie educator effectiveness labels to decisions regarding promotion and retention of teachers and administrators, including tenure and certification decisions.
12
Use a performance-based compensation method that evaluates performance based, at least in part, on student growth data.
13
Growth data can include state-provided measures from assessment data AND locally determined measures.
14
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF)
Report an effectiveness label in the Registry of Educational Personnel (REP) during the end of year submission.
15
2011: Principals only (based on most recent evaluation)
2012: All educators (based on annual evaluations)
16
Use the Framework for Educator Evaluations as a model for educator evaluations.
17
Identify ways to measure student growth and progress toward proficiency using internal measures and local data.
18
Include data from multiple sources as measures of educator effectiveness whenever possible.
19
Collaborate to identify best practices for evaluation methods, metrics in currently non-assessed content areas and grades, and key data sources.
20
Link student data with teacher of record beginning in 2010-11 (CEPI/MDE).
Districts will report “teacher of record” for each course a student takes; local decision.
21
Provide districts and schools with measures of student growth on state-assessments in reading and mathematics for each teacher (regardless of subject taught).
22
Provide districts with measures of student proficiency in writing, science and social studies, and reading and mathematics for each teacher (regardless of subject taught)
23
For each educator, we will generate:
Student growtho Readingo Math
24
Percentage of proficient students
o Readingo Matho Writingo Scienceo Social Science
25
Achievement “growth” can be calculated only where a Grade 3-8 student has been tested in consecutive years (i.e. reading and Math).
26
27
“Puzzle pieces” approach Districts choose which “pieces”
make sense in their local context.
Reports are generated for each educator, regardless of subject taught or type of position.
28
Report (with CEPI) the proportion of educators rated as highly effective, effective, and ineffective (SFSF/ARRA)
29
Report (with CEPI) the factors used in educator evaluations and the proportion of evaluations which include student growth as significant factor.
30
Districts provide information on student courses and
teacher of record (Teacher Student Data
Link)
1
2
31
MDE attaches assessment data (proficiency and
growth) from each student in each teacher’s courses to
that teacher and provides to districts
2
332
Districts use assessment data, local measures of growth and other factors to conduct annual evaluations. The results of evaluations are reported back to the state.
4
3
33
4
MDE provides aggregate reports to the federal
government on the percent of educators in each
effectiveness category
34
MDE will provide for each teacher:
Student growtho Readingo Math
35
Percent of students proficiento Readingo Matho Writingo Scienceo Social Science
36
37
ABC DistrictTeacher Name
Math Reading Writing Science Social Studies Sig Improve Improve Maintain Decline Sig DeclineSally Smith 55 85 70 46 92 20 30 20 20 10Tommy Thompson 35 25 45 45 60 10 20 20 30 20
Percent of Students Proficient Math Growth (% of students)
38
Teacher: Sally SmithStudent Name
Math Reading Writing Science Social Studies Math PLC Reading PLCJohnny Jones NI P P A NP Maintain DeclineCarol Crawford P A A P P Improve Sig ImproveTammy Fay PP P NI P PP Sig Decline Maintain
Student Proficiency Level Student Growth
39
Districts conduct annual evaluations that are: locally determined
40
Districts determine educators’ local ratings based on evaluations.
41
Districts crosswalk local ratings to: Framework for Educator
Evaluation labels OR SFSF Effectiveness
Labels
42
Framework for Educator Evaluation suggests four labels: Exceeds Goals Meets Goals Progressing Toward Goals Does Not Meet Goals
43
44
Framework Labels SFSF Labels
Exceeds goals Highly effective
Meets goals OR
Progressing toward goals
Effective
Does not meet goals
Ineffective
Guidance and evaluation “toolbox”
Inventory of current practices
Collaboration with external stakeholders
45
Referent groups focused on: Evaluating non-assessed
grades/ content areas.
Use in “value-added models.”
46
End of year 2011:
Teacher Student Data Link Collection available in MSDS.
47
End of year 2011 (continued):
Principal effectiveness ratings must be reported in REP.
Other administrators encouraged, but optional until 2012.
48
Early fall 2011:
MDE will provide districts with measures for all educators based on data from the 2009-10 & 2010-11 school years.
49
Fall 2011 – Spring 2012:
Districts conduct educator evaluations as locally bargained/determined.
50
End of year 2012:
Districts report effectiveness ratings for all administrators and teachers.
51
52
America Competes Act American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act (ARRA) State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund State School Aid Act
53
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Districts signed assurances to
receive SFSF dollars Agreed to provide all
necessary data to MDE and CEPI in support of compliance efforts under ARRA
54
State School Aid Act Sec. 94a
Approximately $5/student to support the efforts of districts to match individual teacher and student records
55
All students expected to have at least one course submitted
Exempt Students: Students with IEPs over age
22 (as of Sept. 1) Homeschooled and non-
public students 56
Teacher of Record Certificated teacher
responsible for the instruction and providing the grade
Even if employed by another district
Team Teachers = report both Mentor Teacher for virtual
classes (e.g., seat time waivers)
Resource / support teachers
Higher Education teachers for dual enrollment courses or early / middle college courses
CTE instructors, as they are reported via the CTEIS
Rule of thumb: If the course is documented on the student’s academic record, report it.
60
Report any/all courses for which the student received a course grade
Include courses taken by students who exit or enroll mid-year
61
Courses for which there is no grade or completion status on academic record
Early childhood
Adult education
62
Cumulative school year collection Report all classes taken
throughout the school year For students enrolled at any
point (includes exited students)
63
Open May to August 31Allows for multiple uploadsSingle certification
64
Ability to evaluate teachers based on student growth measures
Combines teacher and student data with achievement data
Supports Regional Data Initiatives
65
66
Data crosses multiple systems HR Systems Master Schedule Counseling Student Data Management
67
Principals Counselors Human Resources/REP Secretary/Data Entry Staff CEPI/MSDS authorized users Teachers Technical support
68
Principals Evaluation process Planning & improvement Resource allocation &
staffing impact Superintendents & School
Board Members69
Counseling Staff Impact on scheduling
Teachers Impact on grades and
record keeping Evaluations
70
Human Resources Personnel data alignment &
security REP Authorized Users
System knowledge Data quality Alignment of data
71
MSDS Authorized Users and/or Secretarial Staff/Data Entry Staff Data quality Student Management
Background System(s) knowledge
72
School Improvement Team Identify patterns of success
and areas of opportunity Data driven improvement
planning and professional development
73
Local IT staff System knowledge System modification Data extraction
74
Districts need to communicate and rely on the vendor for the “How to’s” which may also influence your team members
75
76
77
Submitting Entity
Personal Core
School Demographics
Student Course
78
Which district is certifying the collection
Submitted once per record
Existing component
79
Identifies the student
Submitted once per record
Existing component
80
Information about the district, building & grade level
Submitted once per record
New component with existing characteristics
81
Operating ISD/ESA Number
Operating District Number
School/Facility Number
Student ID Number
Grade or Setting
82
Information about each course
May be submitted multiple times per student record
New component
New & existing characteristics
83
Subject Area Code (required)
Course Identifier Code (optional for 2010-2011will be required in 2011-2012)
84
Prior-to-Secondary School Course Classification System: School Codes for the Exchange of Data (SCED)
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011801
85
The Secondary School Course Classification System: School Codes for the Exchange of Data (SCED)
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007341
86
Local Course Id (required)
Local Course Section (optional)
Local Course Title (required)
Course Type (required)
Academic Year (optional)
87
Credits Granted (conditional)
Course Grade (required for secondary level courses, optional for elementary)
Completion Status (required)
88
PIC (conditional)
• State approved CTE
• Post-Secondary Courses Virtual Delivery (optional) Mentor Teacher (optional)
89
Single certification collection Decertification allowed
until deadline Review all reports for
accuracy BEFORE certifying
Error free ≠ accurate
90
CEPI Web sitewww.michigan.gov/cepi CEPI Applications Michigan Student Data
System Teacher Student Data Link
91
92
Located within the REP Application
PIC: Personnel Identification Code
Allows authorized users to obtain PICs
Available 24/7 to authorized users
Levels of Authorization
REP authorized user
PIC look up & authorization to create a new PIC
PIC look up only
Report displays:
Employee name
Gender
Date of Birth
Social Security Number
Michigan Credential License Number
Personnel Identification Code
Security AgreementPosted on CEPI Web siteRegistry of Educational
Personnel page“Upload REP Data to CEPI”
section
PIC Service User’s GuidePosted on CEPI Web siteRegistry of Educational
Personnel page“REP Help & Resources”
section
Purpose
Assist with mapping assignment codes
May be used to map local course codes
Aligns School Codes for the Exchange of Data (SCED) to
REP Assignment Codes
Teacher Certification Endorsement Codes
Posted on CEPI Web site:
TSDL Web page
REP Web page
Employee Listing by DistrictBuilding, PIC, Name, Assignment
Code, Certification Code
Download REP Data FileDownload of complete REP file
TSDL students not previously reported in MSDS Building & grade level UIC Local Student ID Student name
Students reported without a course grade or credit Building & grade level UIC Local Student ID Student name
Course information Completion Status PIC
Students in virtual courses Building & grade level UIC Local Student ID Student Name
Course information PIC Mentor teacher status
Summary Reports by buildingTotal studentsTotal teachersTotal students reported in each course/section
Total teachers reportedTotal courses per teacher
Identify potential data errors
Provide feedback to districts before certification deadline
Offer assistance with data correction
111
Mid-Collection (July 30)
Delivered by email Superintendents MSDS Authorized Users REP Authorized Users
112
Teachers in REP with no students in TSDL
Teachers with assignment codes that don’t match course crosswalk
Teachers you didn’t report in REP assigned to your students in TSDL
113
114
115
Cross walk master schedules/courses to the federal Subject in the federal SCED manual
Cross walk master schedules to the Course Identification Codes in SCED manual
Set up Course Types116
Double check course credit values and how credit is assigned on course completion
Identify courses with virtual delivery and mentor teacher
Set up students standing of completion status in classes
117
Audit teachers and verify REP and SCED code alignment
Check with vendor to find out how teacher PIC Number needs to be entered into system
118
Evaluate if elementary buildings need to change/update their master schedule and/or enrollments in their Student Information System
Gather necessary tools and resources
Attend trainings119
Local system reports to consider:Reported teacher (teacher of record
roster), course, student, entry date, exit date, grade, completion status, credits
Master schedule records showing SCED code, assignment code, endorsement code
Course by Type with virtual delivery flagCheck student grades
120
Be meticulous about your data, consistency and accuracy count!
Be sure you and your team understand what needs to be reported in each data field
Be sure your team communicates with all personnel who have an impact on the TSDL data
121
First reporting period will begin May 2011
RECOMMENDATION is to have this file uploaded to MSDS prior to July 31 and prior to roll over for the next school year.
Certification of the report must be done by August 31, 2011.
122
123
FAQ document will be posted on CEPI TSDL Web page
All session questions (with answers!) will be posted on CEPI TSDL Web page
124
During the presentation:Email: [email protected]
After the presentation:Email: [email protected]
125
126
MI Streamnet
Representatives:ISD/RESALEA/PSA DistrictsEarly Middle CollegeMDE CEPI
127