S H A R O N L . C O N T R E R A S , P H . D . | S U P E R I N T E N D E N T

Goal V Teacher EVAAS KPI: Baseline Presentation

AUGUST 14 , 2018

MissionGuilford County students will graduate as responsible

citizens prepared to succeed in higher education,

or in the career of their choice.*

*This mission was adopted by the Guilford County Board of Education on December 12, 2000.

VisionTransforming learning and life outcomes for all students.

2

GCS Board Goal

3

Goal V: By 2022, decrease the

achievement gap between Black and

Latino students and their White

peers by 7 percentage points

(currently gaps range from 25-37

percent in reading and math).

Key Performance Indicator

4

•Percentage of teachers with high EVAAS scores

teaching in low-performing schools.

5

EVAAS* Growth Basics

*Education Value-Added Assessment

System

Growth and Proficiency

6

Proficiency: Scoring at or above

Achievement Level III on a specific test at

one point in time

Growth: Change in test scores from one

point in time to another

Growth and Proficiency7

0

20

40

60

80

100

4th 5th 6th

Achie

vem

ent

Grade LevelStudent A Student B

Proficiency

Value-Added Growth8

Students generally grow (develop academically)

year to year.

Value-added analyses examine how growth

varies from teacher to teacher, school to school,

and district to district.

EVAAS “predicts” or estimates how well a

student will do on a particular test.

If the student’s progress is better than expected,

the teacher has “Added Value”.

Achievement vs Growth

9

Student Achievement:

Where are we? Highly correlated with demographics factors

Student Growth:

How far have we come? Highly dependent on what happens as a result of

schooling rather than on demographic factors

10

11

12

Academic Growth and Percent Minority

EVAAS Values13

Values are in Standard Error (SE) units

Values generally range from about -10 to +10

A value of “0” represents average growth.

Values in the range -2.0 to +2.0 are deemed in the average range – met expected growth.

Values that are +2.0 or higher are deemed above average – exceeded expected growth.

Values that are below -2.0 are deemed below average – did not meet expected growth.

EVAAS Values14

15

Teacher EVAAS:

2016-17 Baseline Data

Teacher EVAAS Classification

16

• Exceeded Expected Growth: Growth scores at least

+2.0 standard errors from the mean

• Met Expected Growth: Growth scores between -2.0

and +2.0 standard errors from the mean

• Did Not Meet Expected Growth: Growth scores below

2.0 standard errors from the mean

Low-Performing School Classification

17

Classification #1:

25 GCS schools with the lowest Performance Composites

Compared to all other GCS schools

Classification #2:

38 GCS schools identified by the state as low-performing

Compared to all other GCS elementary & middle schools

Note: High schools are not eligible to be state-identified

as low-performing

18

KPI Baseline Data Findings:2016-17 Teacher EVAAS

18

• Low-Performing schools, using

either classification method, had:

• More teachers who did not

meet growth

• About half as many teachers

who exceeded growth

19

2016-17 Teacher Counts* for Low-Performing Schools Based on Performance Composite

19

School Type# of

Schools# of

Teachers% of

Teachers

Schools With Lowest Performance Composites

25 671 21.6%

All Other Schools 96 2,431 78.4%

Total 121 3,102 100.0%

*Teacher counts are for teachers with EVAAS data

20

2016-17 Teacher EVAAS for Low-Performing Schools Based on Performance Composite

20

17.7% 15.3%21.3%

13.7%

62.6%60.9%

64.7%

59.9%

19.7% 23.8%14.0%

26.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All NC Teachers All GCS Teachers Schools With LowestPerformance Composite

All Other Schools

Not Met Growth Met Growth Exceeded Growth

21

2016-17 Teacher Counts* for Low-Performing Schools Based on State Identification

21

School Type# of

Schools# of

Teachers% of

Teachers

State-Identified Low-Performing Schools

38 819 38.5%

Not State-Identified Low-Performing Schools**

52 1,310 61.5 %

Total 90 2,129 100.0%

*Teacher counts are for teachers with EVAAS data**High schools excluded

22

2016-17 Teacher EVAAS for Low-Performing Schools Based on State Identification

22

17.7% 15.6% 19.0%13.5%

62.6% 64.5%69.2%

61.5%

19.7% 19.9%11.7%

25.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All NC Teachers All GCS Teachers (excludinghigh schools)

State-Identified Low-Performing Schools

Not State-Identified Low-Performing Schools

Not Met Growth Met Growth Exceeded Growth

Next Steps

23

24

Next Steps

24

Performance Matters platform ties professional development to

student learning.

Provide personalized professional development opportunities based

on Teacher EVAAS.

New teacher support model that focuses on low-performing

schools.

Continue implementation of human capital strategies including

Opportunity Culture to recruit highly effective teachers to low

performing schools.

25

Next Steps

25

Begin transfer period in early spring to allow internal staff an

extended period of time to consider positions within the

district.

Provide teacher incentives based on Teacher EVAAS at the 10 lowest performing schools.

Transfers (guaranteed & administrative) will be based on

employee performance and needs of the school rather than

seniority. Seniority may be considered only if all other

criteria are equal.

Provide Teacher EVAAS KPI update with data from 2017-18

in Fall 2018.