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

Common Core State Standards UpdatesJanuary 2012

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

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.

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

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

Getting SMARTER: The Future of Online Balanced Assessment in WisconsinJanuary 2012

Today• SMARTER Balanced Assessment

Consortium• Background• System overview• Updates

• Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium

• WIDA Consortium

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

An Introduction

29 Member States

Common Core State Standards

specify K-12 expectations for

college and career readiness

All students leave high school college and career ready

Assessment System Components

Teachers can accessformative processes and tools to improve

instruction

Interim assessments that are flexible, open, and provide actionable

feedback

Summative assessments benchmarked to college

and career readiness

Assessment System ComponentsAssessment system that balances summative, interim, and formative components for ELA and mathematics:

Summative Assessment (Computer Adaptive)

• Mandatory comprehensive assessment in grades 3–8 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

Timeline

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

FUTURE OF ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT IN WISCONSIN

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

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

http://dynamiclearningmaps.org/

DLM Consortium Member States

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)

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.

1. Computer adaptive summative assessment • Grades 3–8 and 11 (testing window in the Spring)• Selected response, constructed response, technology

enhanced instructionally relevant items

2. Computer adaptive formative and interim tools• Based on learning maps• Administered throughout the year

3. Professional development modules for educators

4. Advanced feedback and reporting systems

ContactsKristen Burton

Office of Educational Accountability

kristen.burton@dpi.wi.gov

Erin Faasuamalie

Special Education Team

erin.faasuamalie@dpi.wi.gov

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

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 OEA’s 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

An Update on Educator Effectiveness in the State of WisconsinJanuary 2012

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)

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.

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.

Pre-service

Licensing

In-servicePI34

Evaluation

Seamless Transitions

TeachersFoundation for

Teacher Practice

Interstate New Teacher

Assessment and Support

Consortium (InTASC)

Model Core Teaching

Standards

Framework for

Teacher Evaluation

Charlotte Danielson

Domains and ComponentsDomain 1: Planning and Preparation

Domain 2: The Classroom

Environment

Domain 3: Instruction

Domain 4: Professional

Responsibilities

PrincipalsFoundation for

Principal Practice

2008 Interstate School

Leaders Licensure

Consortium (ISLLC)

Standards

Framework for Principal Evaluation

Subordinate functions of ISLLC standards

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.

Educator Practice

Teacher PracticeEach 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 PracticeEach 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

System Weights

50%Student Growth

EducatorPractice

50%50%

TeachersInTASC

Danielson’s4 components,22 elements

PrincipalsISLLC

Student Outcomes

Models of Practice Detail (50 % of evaluation)

Student Outcome Detail (50% of evaluation)

15.0%

15.0%

15.0%

2.5%2.5%

50.0%

State Assessment

District Assessment

School-wide Reading (Elementary-Middle)Graduation (High School)

Student Learning Objectives

Models of Practice

District Choice

Student Outcome Weights—PK- 8

State assessment, district assessment, SLOs, and other measures SLOs and other measures

District choice

School-wide reading

SLOs

District assessment

State assessment

0 10 20 30 40 50

District choice

School-wide reading

SLO

0 10 20 30 40 50

Student Outcome Weights—9 -12

District assessment, SLOs, and other measures SLOs

District choice

Graduation rate

SLO

0 10 20 30 40 50

District choice

Graduation rate

SLO

District assessment

0 10 20 30 40 50

Educator Effectiveness System Matrix

Student Outcomes

Models of

Practice

1 2 3 4 5

1 * *

2 *

3

4 *

5 * *

•Asterisks indicate a mismatch between educator’s 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.

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

Educator Effectiveness Timeline

Stage 1Developing

Stage 2Piloting

Stage 3Implementing

Continuous Improvement

Framework ReleaseModel

DevelopmentDevelopmental

Districts

Voluntary Pilots

Development work

Evaluator and Educator training System training

Pilot Evaluation

Model revisionsTraining

continuedStatewide

implementation strategy

Educator Effectiveness

system implemented

statewide

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Educator Effectiveness Timeline

Stage 1Developing

Framework ReleaseModel Development

Developmental Districts

2011-12

Timeline: January – June 2012

Work groups meet once or twice per month

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

Teacher Practice RubricWork 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

Principal Practice RubricWork 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

Student/School Learning OutcomeWork 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.

Data Systems Development & Management FrameworkWork Group Representatives:

• DPI • WCER• Stakeholder representatives:

teachers

principals

district leaders

Actions & Products:

• Status report due in June 2012 containing:

current status of statewide SISwhen 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.

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.

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

Educator Effectiveness Timeline*

Stage 2Piloting

Continuous Improvement

Voluntary PilotsDevelopment work

Evaluator and Educator training System training

Pilot EvaluationModel revisions

Training continuedStatewide implementation strategy

*All work contingent on funding and resources

2012-13 2013-14

Evaluator & Educator TrainingA 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

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 district’s schools.

• Evaluators and those being evaluated will be trained before participating in the pilot test.

Pilot EvaluationAn 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

Contact information• DPI Educator Effectiveness webpage at

http://dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/edueff.html

• Beverly Cann, DPI Education Consultant at beverly.cann@dpi.wi.gov or 608-267-9263