november 19, 2018 - merainc.orgmerainc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/gary-collin...(desss) ion....

DESIGNING RUBRICS FOR STUDENT GROWTH

NOVEMBER 19, 2018

Gary J. Collins, Esq.Patricia M. Poupard, Esq.

Collins & Blaha, P.C.31440 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 170

Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334(248) 406-1140

Assessment and Accountability 2008-2018: Reflections and Next

Steps Venessa A. Keesler, Ph.D.

Deputy Superintendent, Division of Educator, Student, and School Supports (DESSS)

Michigan Department of Education

NOTICE

These slides reflect general legal standards and are not intended as legal advice for specific situations.

Future legal developments may affect these topics.

This document may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Collins & Blaha, P.C.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 2

TOPICS COVERED

Study Proposal (Slides 4-9)

Current Law and Proposed Changes (Slides 10-15)

National Comparison (Slides 16-37)

Student Growth Considerations (Slides 38-44)

Designing Student Growth Rubrics (Slides 45-49)

How to Avoid Challenges Under the “Arbitrary and Capricious” Standard (Slides 50-52)

Score Exclusions (Slides 53-59)

Proofs (Slides 60-65)

Group Discussion (Slides 66-67)11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 3

STUDY PROPOSAL

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 4

STUDY PROPOSAL

Collins & Blaha, P.C. has observed a pattern in many school districts.

Elementary teachers whose students frequently test in the bottom 10% of the student counts do not have seemingly external variables which may account for this result.

Variables such as:English Language LearnerEconomic StatusPrincipal placement of students

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 5

STUDY PROPOSAL (CONT’D)

The teachers are overwhelmingly rated effective.

Principals and other evaluators find it hard to reconcile the student growth score by what is observed in the classroom.

Often heard by Principals – “these are good teachers whose student growth scores are not matching what I see in the classroom.” “Good teacher” is defined by rubric of effective rating on teacher

evaluation based on classroom observations.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 6

INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN JOINT STUDY

COLLINS & BLAHA, P.C., OAKLAND UNIVERSITY AND MUNETRIX

Anonymous Participants and Blinded Data. Interested school districts will give the study permission to look at blinded

data. Districts will remain anonymous.

Study conducted over time (multi-year). The first year will be identifying faculty who are rated effective but are

consistently in the bottom 10% in student growth. Conducting a survey of building level administrators and central office

administrators to determine any common factors.

Review of interventions to improve student growth.

Study would provide data from a cross section of blinded districts.11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 7

STUDY INVOLVEMENT

Collins & Blaha, P.C.Gary J. Collins, Esq.

Patricia M. Poupard, Esq.

Oakland University Sandra Standel, Esq.

Graduate Students

MunetrixRichard “Buzz” Brown, Chief Operating Officer

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 8

STUDY RESULTS

Recommendations regarding cost effective intervention to improve student growth.

Analysis of any causal factors.

Analysis of teacher evaluation instruments for early intervention.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 9

CURRENT LAW AND PROPOSED CHANGES

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 10

TEACHER PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT AND

LAYOFF/RECALL - RECOMMENDATIONS

The Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness recommends: Use student growth tools in a way that balances the spirit of the law with limitations

of current assessments

Focus educator and student attention on learning

Collins & Blaha, P.C. also recommends: Emphasize performance improvement: ensure student growth informs teacher

practice not layoff/recall

Maximize impact of classroom observation on the overall rating

Allow for possibility of an “Effective” overall rating, even with a minimally effective score on one student growth measure

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 11

TEACHER PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT AND STUDENT

GROWTH

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 12

Legal Framework: Use student growth tools in a way that balances the spirit of the law with limitations

of current assessments.

Focus educator and student attention on learning.

Student growth data will be diagnostic not determinate of teacher evaluation.

Maximize impact of classroom observation on the overall evaluation rating.

Allow for possibility of an “Effective” overall rating, even with a minimally effective score on one student growth measure.

Emphasize performance improvement: ensure student growth informs teacher practice.

PERTINENT PENDING LEGISLATION

House Bill 5707 introduced on March 8, 2018: Referred to Committee on Education

Reform.

Would revert Student Growth Component to 25%.

House Bill 6401 would accomplish the same reduction in Administrator Evaluations.

October 4, 2018 both bills were passed out of the Education Reform Committee and referred to the order of Second Reading of Bills.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 13Source: Journal of the House, October 4, 2018.

STUDENT GROWTH

MEASURING AND INCLUDING STUDENT GROWTH DATA IN TEACHER EVALUATIONS

2018-19+

40% of teacher’s annual year-end evaluation must be based on student growth and assessment data.

For core content areas in grades and subjects in which state assessments are administered, 20% of evaluation must be measured using state assessments.

Remaining 20% must be measured using

multiple research-based growth measures;

alternative assessments that are rigorous and comparable across schools within the district or academy;

student learning objectives;

nationally normed or locally adopted assessments that are aligned to state standards, or

based on achievement of individualized education program goals

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 14See MCL 1249(2); Michigan Teacher and Administrator Evaluations (2016), pp 36, 39, 40.

SCHOOLYEAR RATING ELEMENTS

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 15

60%20%

20%

2018-2019 School Year Rating Elements

Observation Student Growth with Core Student Growth without Core

Evaluation Tool

Student growth:• Student learning objectives; • Achievement of IEP goals; • National, local or alternative

assessments; or • Research-based growth

For core content areas in grades and subjects in which state assessments are administered –student growth measured using state assessments.

NATIONAL COMPARISON

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 16

STUDENT GROWTH: NATIONAL ISSUE

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 17

WA

OR

CA

MT

ID

NV

AZ

UT

WY

CO

NM

TX

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

MSAL

GA

FL

SC

TN

NC

ILL

WI

MI

OH

IN

KY

WV VA

PA

NY

ME

NH

NJ

MA

CT

RI

AK

DE

VT

MD

HI

OH

No state policy requiring student growth in teacher evaluations

State policy requires student growth in teacher evaluations

Source: State of the States: Evaluating Teaching, Leading and Learning. National Council on Teacher Quality. November, 2015

STUDENT GROWTH IN TEACHER EVALUATIONS (2015)

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 18

12

3

14Higher than Michigan (>40%)

Equal to Michigan (=40%)

Less than Michigan (<40%)

NUMBER OF STATES INCORPORATING STUDENT

GROWTH FOR TEACHER EVALUATIONS

EQUAL TO MICHIGAN


REDUCTION IN STUDENT GROWTH

The following states have dropped requirements that evaluations include student-growth measures and begun letting districts decide what elements to include.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 19

Source: Are States Changing Course on Teacher Evaluation?, Education Week, 2017.

REDUCTION IN STUDENT GROWTH (CONT’D)

Examples of the Range of Approaches

NevadaStudent growth accounted for 40% of teacher evaluation by 2017-18; as of 2017 student-growth accounts for 20% of teacher evaluation in 2017-18, and 40% thereafter.

KentuckyStudent growth was “preponderant” criterion in teacher evaluation; as of 2017 student growth is no longer a required part of teacher evaluation.

FloridaAt least one-third of teacher-evaluation scores must be based on data and indicators of student performance. Measures must be derived from the state’s value-added formula; as of 2017 at least one-third of teacher-evaluation scores must still be based on data and indicators of student performance. Districts can determine how they measure student growth.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 20Source: Are States Changing Course on Teacher Evaluation?, Education Week, 2017.

INTEGRATION OF STATUTES

TENURE ACT• Performance evaluations of tenured and probationary teachers must be conducted pursuant to Section

1249.• A teacher’s performance rating impacts his or her ability to attain and maintain tenure.

SECTION 1248• Decisions regarding layoff and recall must be based on retaining effective teachers.• Teacher effectiveness is measured by the performance evaluations required and described in Section

1249.

SECTION 1249• School districts must use performance evaluations to inform decisions regarding promotion, retention,

and the removal of ineffective tenured and untenured teachers.• A teacher’s evaluation shall incorporate the criteria enumerated in Section 1248(1)(b)(i) to (iii). Includes

the criteria listed in Section 1248(1)(b) as part of a teacher’s performance evaluation.11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 21See Michigan Teacher and Administrator Evaluations (2016), p 26.

INTEGRATION OF SECTION 1249, SECTION 1248, AND THE TENURE ACT

Teacher Evaluations under Section 1249 of the Revised School Code

Discharge and Suspension under the Teachers’ Tenure Act

Layoff and Recall under Section 1248 of the Revised School Code

INTEGRATING SECTION 1249 WITH OTHER LAWS

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 22

See Michigan Teacher and Administrator Evaluations (2016), p 25.

STATES WHERE EFFECTIVENESS RATING IS USED IN LAYOFF

AND RECALL

Ten states that require instructional effectiveness to be the most important criterion during reduction in force decisions:

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 23

WA

OR

CA

MT

ID

NV

AZ

UT

WY

CO

NM

TX

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

MSAL

GA

FL

SC

TN

NC

ILL

WI

MI

OH

IN

KY

WV VA

PA

NY

ME

NH

NJ

MA

CT

RI

AK

DE

VT

MD

HI

MichiganColoradoGeorgiaIllinoisIndiana

LouisianaNevadaPennsylvaniaTexasUtah

OH

Source: State Teacher Policy: Best Practices Guide, National Council on Teacher Quality (2018)

TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS: A TROUBLING PATTERN – 3% LESS THAN EFFECTIVE?

Nationally: Pattern in states that have adopted new performance-based teacher evaluation systems.

Michigan: 97% of teachers are rated “Effective” or better; 3% rated needs improvement or ineffective.

Ratings not easily reconciled with student achievement/growth or variations in teacher experience.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 24Source: State of the States: Evaluating Teaching, Leading and Learning. National Council on Teacher Quality. November, 2015

LAYOFF AND RECALL SKEWS EVALUATIONS: EVALUATION

SYSTEMS ARE ALIGNED WITH LAYOFF AND RECALL

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 25

Teacher Ratings in Selected States

STATE

PERCENT OF TEACHERS

RATED HIGHLY EFFECTIVE OR

EFFECTIVE

PERCENT OF TEACHERS RATED

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT OR

INEFFECTIVE

SCHOOL YEAR

Florida 97.7 2.3 2013-14

Michigan 98 2 2012

Tennessee 98 2 2013


NEW MEXICO: NOT SKEWED BY LAYOFF AND

RECALL

3.60%5.40%

3.20%

22.60% 23.30% 22.40%

47.10%

42.70% 42.20%

24.20% 24.80%

27.60%

2.50%3.80% 4.50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2015 2016 2017

Teacher effectiveness ratings (New Mexico, 2015-17)

Ineffective Minimally Effective Effective Highly Effective Exemplary


NEW YORK: NOT SKEWED BY LAYOFF AND RECALL

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 27

STATE

PERCENT OF TEACHERS

RATED HIGHLY EFFECTIVE OR

EFFECTIVE

PERCENT OF TEACHERS RATED

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT OR

INEFFECTIVE

SCHOOL YEAR

New York 95 5 2012-2013

New York 84 16 2014-2015


DISCRETION: BASIS FOR LAYOFF AND RECALL

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 28

Required layoff and recall decisions to be “based on effectiveness.”

Implies that school districts must make layoff and recall decisions based on a serial ranking of each individual teacher on the basis of the teacher’s effectiveness rating

Requires layoff and recall decisions to be “based on retaining effective teachers.” MCL 380.1248(1)(b).

Allows school districts to make layoff and recall decisions by grouping teachers on the basis of effectiveness label and making layoff and recall decisions from within these groups.

HO

US

E B

ILL

46

27 (

AS

INT

RO

DU

CE

D)

PU

BL

IC A

CT

102 OF

2011 (E

NA

CT

ED

)

DISCRETION: BASIS FOR LAYOFF AND RECALL

Why might school districts prefer to group teachers, based on a qualitative effectiveness rating instead of numerical scores?Allows more variance within a group/range.

Reduces the trainer-evaluator differences.

Minimizes the compounding of errors.

More flexible personnel decisions.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 29

DISCRETION: ADDITIONAL FACTORS IN LAYOFF/RECALL

For purposes of layoff and recall, teacher effectiveness is measured by the performance evaluation system under Section 1249. MCL 380.1248(1)(b).

Section 1248 also specifies that personnel decisions must be made based on factors including “significant, relevant accomplishments and contributions” and relevant special training.” Id.

While often overlooked, these additional factors allow school districts flexibility to limit teacher placement for purposes of layoff and recall.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 30

MANDATORY STATE ASSESSMENTS FOR STUDENTS BY GRADE LEVEL

(2018-2019)

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 31

Note: The MI-Access is an alternate assessment that measures progress toward Michigan’s alternate content standards. Certain students who have a significant cognitive impairment take the MI-Access instead of the M-STEP. A student is eligible totake the MI-Access if his or her Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) team has determined that general assessments, even with accommodations, are not appropriate for the student. The MI-Access is administered at three levels: (1) FunctionalIndependence (high range of complexity); (2) Supported Independence (medium range of complexity); and (3) Participation (low range of complexity).* Please refer to next slide.†No state assessment is required for 12th grade students unless the student has not completed the assessments previously required, in which case the student must complete those assessments.

GRADE LEVEL SUBJECT AREAS

English Language Arts Math Science Social Studies ELL

K Early Literacy Benchmark Assessment*Benchmark Assessment that meets

criteria set by MDE

WID

A A

CC

ESS

(Gra

des

K-1

2)

1 Early Literacy Benchmark AssessmentBenchmark Assessment that meets

criteria set by MDE

2 Early Literacy Benchmark AssessmentBenchmark Assessment that meets

criteria set by MDE

3Early Literacy Benchmark Assessment &

M-STEPM-STEP

4 M-STEP M-STEP

5 M-STEP M-STEP M-STEP M-STEP

6 M-STEP M-STEP

7 M-STEP M-STEP

8 PSAT 8/9 PSAT 8/9 M-STEP M-STEP

9 PSAT 8/9 PSAT 8/9

10 PSAT 10 PSAT 10

11 SAT SAT M-STEP M-STEP

12†

MANDATORY STATE ASSESSMENTS FOR STUDENTS BY

GRADE LEVEL (2018-2019) (CONT’D)

Michigan’s “Read by Grade 3” law requires school districts to administer benchmark assessments in grades K-3. See MCL 380.1280f(2). School districts may choose from a list of state-approved initial and extensive assessments; the list of 2018-2019 state-approved initial and extensive assessments are available here: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/17-18_Initial_Assessment_List_560866_7.pdf and here: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Extensive_Assessment_List_3_2018_Final_621440_7.pdf, respectively.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 32

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/17-18_Initial_Assessment_List_560866_7.pdf

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Extensive_Assessment_List_3_2018_Final_621440_7.pdf

TEACHERS FOR WHOM 50% OF THE STUDENT GROWTH RATING

MUST BE BASED ON STATE ASSESSMENTS

The Michigan Department of Education (“MDE”) has advised that for teachers in the following grades and subject areas, “50% of student growth must be measured using the state assessments.” See MCL 380.1249(2)(a)(ii).

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 33

GRADE LEVEL SUBJECT AREAS

English Language Arts Math Science Social Studies ELL

K

1

2

3

4 M-STEP/MI-Access M-STEP/MI-Access




8 PSAT 8/9/MI-Access* PSAT 8/9/MI-Access*

9

10

11

12

*MDE has stated it is currently working on a plan to calculate student growth percentile (“SGP”) data for the PSAT 8/9, PSAT 10, and SAT, and it “hopes to be able to provide SGP data when 2019 PSATscores are available.” Questions and Answers fromMDE’s August 16, 2018Webinar onMichigan’s State Assessment System, August 29, 2018, p 2.

OTHER MDE-RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENTS

Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment Project (“MAEIA”) Provides model assessments for all grades in dance, music, theatre and visual arts (See

MDE website).

MDE has developed early literacy/math benchmark assessments for grades K-2 Administered in the Fall and Spring

K-3 students must be given an ELA assessment from an MDE-approved list within the first 30 days of school MCL 380.1280f(2)9a).

Because the students are already required to take ELA assessments, the district could use the results of these assessments to calculate a portion of student growth.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 34

OTHER MDE RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENTS (CONT’D)

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 35

Renaissance Learning: STAR Early Literacy

Reading Test

Iowa Assessments – Survey Version

Lexia RAPID Assessment

I-Ready Diagnostic Reading Assessment

Edmentum Exact PathDegrees of Reading Power

(Questar)

AIMSweb Plus NWEA

District-wide assessment developed by department

chairs or central office administrators

MANDATED TESTING – OTHER STATES

TEST STATE(S)

ACT Kentucky (HS), South Carolina (HS), Wisconsin (HS), Wyoming (HS)

PARCCArkansas, Colorado, Washington DC, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey,

New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island

SMARTER BALANCED

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada (3-8), New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington,

West Virginia, Wisconsin (3-8)

ACT ASPIRE Alabama, South Carolina (3-8)

ALASKA MEASURES OF PROGRESS Alaska

AZMERIT Arizona

END OFYEAR COURSE TESTS/END OF INSTRUCTION EXAM Missouri (HS), North Carolina , Oklahoma (HS)

FLORIDA STANDARDS ASSESSMENT Florida

GEORGIA MILESTONES ASSESSMENT Georgia

IOWA ASSESSMENTS Iowa

ISTEP Indiana

KCCRS-ALIGNED ASSESSMENTS Kansas


MANDATED TESTING – OTHER STATES(CONT’D)

TEST STATE(S)KEYSTONE EXAMS Pennsylvania (HS)

K-PREP Kentucky (3-8)

MAP Missouri (3-8)

MINNESOTA COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENTS Minnesota

M-STEP Michigan

NEBRASKA STATE ACCOUNTABILITY Nebraska

NEWYORK ASSESSMENTS New York

OKLAHOMA CORE CURRICULUM TEST Oklahoma (3-8)

PA SYSTEM OF SCHOOL ASSESSMENT Pennsylvania (3-8)

PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS FOR WYOMING STUDENT Wyoming (3-8)

STANDARDS OF LEARNING Virginia

STATE OF TEXAS ASSESSMENTS OF ACADEMY READINESS Texas

STUDENT ASSESSMENT OF GROWTH & EXCELLENCE Utah

TNREADY Tennessee


STUDENT GROWTH CONSIDERATIONS

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 38

STUDENT GROWTH CONSIDERATIONS

1. Determine what assessments other than the M-STEP will be used to measure student growth.

At least two different methods must be used to measure a teacher’s student growth.

The M-STEP must be used for teachers of English Language Arts (“ELA”) and/or Math in grades 4-8. The Michigan Department of Education (“MDE”) has stated that Student Growth Percentiles (“SGPs”) are the “preferred method” for measuring student growth on the M-STEP.

Other possibilities: NWEA, DRC Beacon, DRC Smarter Balance, DIBELS, other early literacy assessments approved by MDE, AP or IB Exams, common final exams and unit assessments, PSAT, Michigan Arts Education Instruction and Assessment Project, achievement of IEP goals, SLOs, etc.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 39

STUDENT GROWTH CONSIDERATIONS (CONT’D)

2. Establish a matrix for determining a teacher’s annual year-end evaluation rating.

We recommend applying the following rubric to the final numerical score to determine the teacher’s year-end evaluation rating: 1 to 1.9: ineffective;

2 to 2.5: minimally effective;

2.6 to 3.5: effective;

3.6 to 4.0: highly effective.

This rating system will maximize the possibility of the classroom observation governing a teacher’s annual year-end evaluation rating.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 40


3. Decide how teachers’ 3 most recent years of student growth will be weighted.

Options include: Equal weighting (33.33% each);

More weight to more recent years (in reverse chronological order: 50%, 30%, 20%).

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 41


4. Determine baseline SGP scores to coordinate with teacher effectiveness ratings.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 42

Recommendation from the MDE Alternative Recommendations

SGP of 60 or more: 4 (highly effective); SGP of 75 or more: 4 (highly effective);

SGP of 40 to 59: 3 (effective); SGP of 40 to 74: 3 (effective);

SGP of 20 to 39: 2 (minimally effective); SGP of 30 to 39: 2 (minimally effective);

SGP of 0 to 19: 1 (ineffective). SGP of 0 to 29: 1 (ineffective).

THREE YEARS OF DATA

Section 1249(2).(b) If there are student growth and assessment data available for a teacher for at least 3 school years, the annual year-end evaluation shall be based on the student growth and assessment data for the most recent 3-consecutive-school-year period. If there are not student growth and assessment data available for a teacher for at least 3 school years, the annual year-end evaluation shall be based on all student growth and assessment data that are available for the teacher.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 43


VARIABLES WHICH MAY AFFECT STUDENT GROWTH

Impact of declining enrollment, teacher shortage and public pressures. Economically-disadvantaged districts vs others. Districts with higher proportion of ELL students or those with learning disabilities. Assessment limitations. Some teachers: only one year of student achievement available. impact on students.

Downsides of teaching to the test. Michigan’s laws requirement that layoff/recall decisions be “based on” effectiveness reduces

variation in teacher ratings. Probationary teachers may be disproportionately impacted by student growth measures. Teacher absenteeism. Student attendance. Teacher transfer to new position and level for first time.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 44

DESIGNING STUDENT GROWTH RUBRICS

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 45

EVALUATION SYSTEM DESIGN : USE FLEXIBLE RATING

SCALES

Set up a tailored scoring scale Scale ranges need not be equally distributed

May reflect desired excellence (narrow “Highly Effective” interval) and pragmatics (wider “Effective” interval)

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 46

Measure Scores Recommended

Highly Effective 4 3.6-4.0

Effective 3 2.6-3.5

Minimally Effective 2 2.0-2.5

Ineffective 1 0.0-1.9

See Proofs on Slides 60-65.

EVALUATION SYSTEM DESIGN (CONT’D)

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 47

INEFFECTIVEObservation

MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE

Observation

EFFECTIVE Observation

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

Observation

INEFFECTIVE Ineffective IneffectiveMinimally Effective

Effective

MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE IneffectiveMinimally Effective

Effective Effective

EFFECTIVE IneffectiveMinimally Effective

Effective Highly Effective

HIGHLY EFFECTIVEMinimally Effective

Effective Effective Highly Effective

Classroom Observation Portion Weight = 0.6

Student Growth PortionWeight = 0.4

See Proofs on slides 60-65.

EVALUATION SYSTEM DESIGN: USING

DIFFERENTIATING/STABILIZING MEASURES

Differentiating: A growth measure which produces differentiation in in the vast majority of teachers. (Almost any commercially available growth measure provides differentiation) A non-state assessment measure created by the district may be tailored to

increase or reduce the impact of differentiation

Stabilizing: A growth measure on which the vast majority of faculty will likely be rated “Effective” or above (Currently in use in almost all Michigan schools.) Examples include: Commons Assessments; Alternative Assessments; and IEP

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 48

RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT’D)

Select “stabilizing” student growth measures

Consider alternative assessments that provide for a range of teacher achievements

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 49

EVALUATION SYSTEM DESIGN: UNIFORMITY

40% of the overall evaluation “shall be based on” student growth (2018-19).

Wide discretion in determining what measures are used and how scored.

Sections 1248 and 1249 authorize only a district-level evaluation policy. I.e. Ensure the district evaluation system uniformly measures student growth – and teacher

effectiveness.

E.g. 2nd grade math teacher in Elementary A is evaluated using the same standards as 2d grade math teacher in Elementary B.

Uniformity helps ensure District-level evaluation ratings reported to MDE are accurate and consistent.

Uniformity may be found in the core content areas in grades and subjects in which state assessments are administered (i.e. represents 50% of the growth component).

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 51

EVALUATION SYSTEM DESIGN (CONT’D)

Recommendations 2018: 40% of the overall evaluation is “based on” student growth measures (20% state

assessment, 20% locally-devised measures)

Emphasize teacher growth, rather than layoff and recall Non-assessment indicators in the local student growth portion

Exception: if achievement is low and an alternative assessment may demonstrate positive growth

Turn numerical scores to qualitative rating categories and tailor rating scales

Use “Stabilizing” factors where appropriate

Maximize impact of classroom observations

Minimize the impact of a less-than-Effective student growth score

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 52

STUDENT SCORE EXCLUSIONS

The performance evaluation system may allow for exemption of student growth datafor a particular pupil for a school year upon the recommendation of the schooladministrator conducting the annual year-end evaluation or his or her designee andapproval of the school district superintendent or his or her designee, intermediatesuperintendent or his or her designee, or chief administrator of the public schoolacademy, as applicable. [380.1249(2)(i).]

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 54


EXCLUSION OF STUDENT SCORES

Section 1249 allows for the exemption of a student growth data for a particular student when calculating a teacher’s student growth rating for the school year. Exemptions should be limited to extraordinary circumstances.

Guidance from MDE explains: “Measurement of student growth within educator evaluations provides an indication of

the impact of instruction over a pre-defined instructional interval. Unique circumstances may cause student growth scores to inaccurately reflect the impact of a teacher’s instruction, justifying exclusion from educator evaluation rating determinations.” [MDE Student Growth Score Exclusion Guidance, 8/2/2018 (emphasis added).]

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 55

POTENTIAL REASONS FOR EXCLUDING STUDENT GROWTH

DATA

Extraordinary circumstances justifying the exemption of student growth data may involve: Low attendance

Transferring into the school district late in the school year

Student-related issues that impact performance, such as – Experiencing an injury that impacts the student’s ability to demonstrate growth; or

Experiencing trauma that affects the student’s ability to demonstrate growth.

Test-related issues, such as – A student observed cheating on the test;

A student observed randomly choosing answers on the test.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 56

DOCUMENTING STUDENT GROWTH DATA EXEMPTIONS

Pursuant to the statute, exemption of student growth data requires: The recommendation of the administrator conducting the teacher’s year-end

evaluation, or his designee; and Approval of the district superintendent, or his designee. [MCL 380.1249(2)(i).]

We recommend that school districts adopt administrative regulations stating what criteria is necessary to obtain an administrator’s recommendation and the superintendent’s approval for exemption.

It should be noted when calculating a teacher’s student growth rating if any students’ growth data was exempted pursuant to the administrative regulation.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 57

EXAMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION

When calculating a teacher’s student growth rating, the teacher’s year-end evaluator recommends, and the superintendent approves, the exemption of student growth data for the following students, as permitted by MCL 380.1249(2)(i):

1) Students who have missed more 20% of school; and

2) Students who were not placed in the applicable teacher’s classroom for both count days, as well as when the assessments in question were administered.

In addition, a teacher may request that the student growth data for a particular student be exempted when calculating the teacher’s final evaluation rating by submitting a written request to the teacher’s evaluator no later than May 1, 2018. The request should include an explanation for the proposed exemption and evidence, if applicable, to support the request.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 58

EXCLUDING A TEACHER FROM THE STUDENT GROWTH

REQUIREMENT

In addition, a teacher who ordinarily would be subject to the student growth requirements of Section 1249 may be exempt from such requirements in extraordinary circumstances, which may include: A teacher who begins teaching in April.

A teacher who is on a medical leave for most of the school year.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 59

EVALUATION MODEL DESIGNED FOR TEACHER GROWTH

RATHER THAN LAYOFF AND RECALL

Assign numerical values in each category.

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 61

Rating IneffectiveMinimally

EffectiveEffective

Highly

Effective

Numerical Score 1 2 3 4

Refer back to Rating Scale on Slide 46.

TO EMPHASIZE STUDENT MEASUREMENT USED FOR TEACHER

GROWTH, ASSIGN NUMERICAL VALUE TO EACH RATING CATEGORY

AT SEVERAL STAGES

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 62

Growth Measure 1 1 2 3 4

Growth Measure 2 +3 +3 +3 +3

Score 4 5 6 7

50% of Student

Growthx0.5 x0.5 x0.5 x0.5

Score 2 2.5 3 3.5

Assign value to

student growth

based on rubric

Minimally

Effective

Minimally

EffectiveEffective Effective

2 2 3 3


OBSERVATION CORRELATED WITH FINAL EVALUATION

With a minimally effective student growth score:

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 63

ObservationIneffective Minimally Effective Effective Highly Effective

0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4

Student GrowthMinimally Effective Minimally Effective Minimally Effective Minimally Effective

.8 .8 .8 .8

Final Overall

Evaluation Score

Ineffective Minimally Effective Effective Effective

1.4 2 2.6 3.2

Scale

Highly Effective 3.6-4.0

Effective 2.6-3.5

Minimally Effective 2.0-2.5

Ineffective 0.0-1.9



With an effective student growth score:

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 64


0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4

Student GrowthEffective Effective Effective Effective

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Final Overall

Evaluation Score

Ineffective Minimally Effective Effective Highly Effective

1.8 2.4 3 3.6

Scale


Effective 2.6-3.5


Ineffective 0.0-1.9



With a highly effective student growth score:

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 65


0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4

Student GrowthHighly Effective Highly Effective Highly Effective Highly Effective

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

Final Overall

Evaluation Score

Minimally Effective Effective Effective Highly Effective

2.2 2.8 3.4 4.0

Scale


Effective 2.6-3.5


Ineffective 0.0-1.9


HOW ISYOUR DISTRICT HANDLING DATA?

What are you seeing in your District?

How are you housing data?

How are you reporting data? (i.e., individual basis, building wide, District wide, grade level, subject area, etc.)

Any unexpected results? (i.e., teacher adhering to techniques and having low student growth scores.)

11/19/2018 © 2018 Collins & Blaha, P.C. 67

DESIGNING RUBRICS FOR STUDENT GROWTH

QUESTIONS?Gary J. Collins, Esq.

Patricia M. Poupard, Esq.Collins & Blaha, P.C.

31440 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 170Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334

(248) 406-1140

november 19, 2018 - merainc.orgmerainc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/gary-collin...(desss) ion....

Documents