Mississippi Professional Educators
Mississippi Department of Education
Updates
April 9, 2011
Lynn J. House
Deputy State Superintendent
Daphne Buckley
Deputy State Superintendent
1
Statewide
Accountability Model
Changes - 2011-12
Recommendations to the State Board of Education by the
MS Assessment Technical Advisory Committee
1. Retain the current QDI cut scores.
2. Update the Growth Component to periodically
use a consistent measure for movement, such as
75 % threshold for reaching successful or above.
3. Incorporate stability and planned change into the system.
Approved by the State Board at its March 2011 meeting.
2
Update on the Mississippi
Assessment System
1. Seniors ONLY Re-testers will have 2 days for English II (pilot)
2. Calculators will be free of any stored formulas, applications and/or
programs for MCT2 Math 7-8 and Alg. I
3. Biology is in its first operational year (2010-11) and
will NOT be used in the Accountability Model until 2011-12.
4. US History will be operational in 2011-12, but will not be used
in the Accountability Model until the following year, 2012-13
5. MDE is exploring options for how we will identify and incorporate
K-2 Assessments into our state assessment system
3
Common Core State Standards
and Assessments
4
Common Core
State Standards (CCSS)
• Developed through CCSSO and the National Governor’s
Association (NGA) using professional organizations and other
constituencies
• Currently available in English Language Arts (ELA) and
Mathematics
• Aligned with college and work expectations AND the SBE
Vision/Mission
• Rigorous content requiring higher-order thinking and
application of knowledge
• Internationally benchmarked
• Evidence-and/or research-based
5
RttT Assessment Proposals
The Process:
• Proposals were due from multi-state consortia on June 23, 2010
• Awards were made in September, 2010
• New Consortia tests to replace current state NCLB tests in 2014-2015
Two Comprehensive Assessment Proposals Funded:
 Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
 26 states, 31 million students K-12
 SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
 31 states, 21 million students K-12
Note: 12 states currently in both and 6 states in neither
Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS
6
RTTT Assessment
Program Requirements
• Build upon shared standards for college/career readiness;
• Measure individual growth as well as proficiency;
• Measure the extent each student is on track, at each grade level
tested, toward college/career readiness by high school completion, and
provide information that is useful in informing:
– Teaching, learning, and program improvement;
– Determinations of school effectiveness;
– Determinations of educator effectiveness for use in evaluations and
provision of support to teachers/principals;
– Determinations of individual student college/career readiness, through
high school exit decisions, college course placement to credit-bearing
classes, and/or college entrance.
Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS
7
Basic PARCC Timeline
2010-2011
Development/approval of common policies/procedures
2011-2012
Initial item /task development, piloting of components
2011-2012
Development of P. D. resources & online platform
2012-2013
Field testing
2013-2014
Field testing
2014-2015
New summative assessments in use
Summer 2015
Setting of common achievement standards
Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS
8
PARCC – Two Types of
Summative Assessments
FOCUSED
ASSESSMENTS
END OF YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE
ASSESSMENT
• One to three tasks that assess a
few “keystone” standards/topics
• Taken on computer, with mixed
item types
• Given at three points during the
school year, near the end of quarters
• Scored entirely by computer for
fast results
• Results within 2 weeks to inform
instruction and intervention
Scores from both focused &
end-of-yr. assessments will be
combined for annual
accountability score.
9
Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS
PARCC:
Focused Assessments 1 and 2
25%
50%
Focused
ASSESSMENT 1
• ELA
• Math
Focused
ASSESSMENT 2
• ELA
• Math
In a single session/class period, students in grades 3 - 11 will:
• ELA: Read texts, draw evidence to form conclusions, and prepare a
written analysis
• Math: For each of 1 or 2 essential topics (standards or clusters of
standards), complete 1 to 3 constructed response tasks
Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS
10
PARCC:
Focused Assessment 3
75%
Over several sessions/class periods, students will
complete a project-like task that draws on a range of
skills. Examples:
• ELA:
Locate digital information, evaluate and
select sources, and compose an essay or
research paper
• Math: Perform a multi-step performance task
that requires application of mathematical
skills and reasoning and may require
technological tools
• Speaking/Listening task: Conducted in classroom,
not used for accountability, scored by teacher.
Focused
ASSESSMENT 3
• ELA
• Math
Focused
ASSESSMENT 4
• Speaking
• Listening
Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS
11
PARCC:
End-of-Year Assessment
90%
• Composed of 40 to 65 questions of a range of item types
including innovative technology-enhanced items to sample the
full year of standards
•
Scored by computer
• Will make major investment in enhanced item types
Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS
END OF YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE
ASSESSMENT
12
PARCC:
Resources, Tools, Supports
PARTNERSHIP RESOURCE CENTER: Digital library of released items, formative assessments,
model curriculum frameworks, curriculum resources, student and educator tutorials and practice
tests, scoring training modules, and professional development materials
Partnership Resource Center:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interactive Data Tool for accessing data and creating customized reports
Exemplar lesson plans
Formative assessment items and tasks
Professional development materials regarding test administration,
scoring, and use of data
Online practice tests
Item development portal
Tools and resources developed by Partner states
Optional “ready-to-use” performance tasks for K-2
Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS
13
The PARCC System
English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3 - 11
25%
50%
75%
90%
PARTNERSHIP RESOURCE CENTER: Digital library of released items, formative assessments,
model curriculum frameworks, curriculum resources, student and educator tutorials and practice
tests, scoring training modules, and professional development materials
Focused
ASSESSMENT 1
• ELA
• Math
Summative
assessment for
accountability
Focused
ASSESSMENT 2
• ELA
• Math
Required, but not
used for
accountability
Focused
ASSESSMENT 3
• ELA
• Math
END OF YEAR
COMPREHENSIVE
ASSESSMENT
Focused
ASSESSMENT 4
• Speaking
• Listening
Center for K – 12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS
14
Next Steps for MDE
 Continue to meet with stakeholder groups (K-12 and IHL) to:
 Review findings of the alignment study (DONE)
 Develop a crosswalk (IN PROGRESS)
 Determine 9-12 courses (IN PROGRESS)
 Make resources known to stakeholders (IN PROGRESS)
 Align/Revise PK3 and PK4 guidelines
 Conduct regional awareness sessions /webinars through RESAs (DONE)
 Plan work with the regional laboratories, technical assistance providers,
and other groups (IN PROGRESS)
 Format the CCSS to reflect current curriculum structure.(TO BE DONE -TBD)
 Revise/develop instructional materials (suggested teaching strategies,
resources, and assessment aids) and offer training (IN PROGRESS)
 Determine which policies/procedures need adjustment (TBD)
 Plan transition to new assessments (IN PROGRESS)
 Continue working with PARCC to implement assessments (IN PROGRESS)
15
State Board Examination System
16
®
17
18
18
Profile of Successful U.S. Firms
in the Future
19
Pillars of Board Exam Systems
A sound core program
of courses defining
what it means to be
an educated person
Thoughtfully
constructed course
designs captured
in a syllabus
High quality exams
derived from the
curriculum using
multiple assessment
methods
Quality teacher
training
matched to
the course syllabi
20
Why Board Exams?
• Best global research shows that board
exam systems key to success of many of
world’s best performing systems for ALL
students
• Why? Because they provide the support
teachers need to teach well and students
must have to succeed
• Crucially important for low-performing
schools and students
21
Profile of Successful Workers
• Top academic performance in all five
core areas:
English, Mathematics, Science, Social
Studies, and the Arts
• Creative and innovative
• Able to learn very quickly
22
How the State Board Examination
System Would Work
Approximate
Student
Age
Educational Pathway
Graduate Education
22
4 Year Selective Institutions
4 Yr
OAI
Work
18
Upper Div’n
(AP, IB, ACT,
CTE, A Levels)
16
Add’l time
to meet
Comps.
2 Yr Open Admissions
Institutions (OAI)
Lower Division Exam System
Core Curriculum, Syllabi, Exams,
Teacher Training, All Set to Int’l Standards
14
23
State Consortium on Board Examination Systems
Options
Public Open
Admission 4-year
College
Selective 4-year
College
Public Open Admission
Colleges
2-year
4-year
Accredited Career and
Technical Programs
Upper Division
Board Examination System
High School Diploma Program
STEM focused
CTE focused
Purely College Prep Focused
(exams can be taken/diplomas
awarded as early as end of 12th
grade)
Age 14 - 17 (approx)
Age 16 – 19 (approx)
Move Up When Ready
Move on When Ready
Lower Division
Board Examination System
High School Diploma
Program
(exams can be
taken/diplomas awarded as
early as end of 10th grade)
Workplace
Workplace
Public Open
Admission
2-year College
4-year College
Workplace
Public Open
Admission 4-year
College
Selective 4-year
College
Age 17 – 23 (approx)
24
Board Exam Systems: The Best
ACT QualityCore
Cambridge International Exams
College Board APs
International Baccalaureate
25
Key Benefits
• Students motivated to take tough courses and study hard
• A very strong curriculum and teachers trained to teach it
for schools and students with weak instructional resources
• A strong system for preparing the most able students for
selective colleges
• A way to identify students not college-ready by the end
of their sophomore year and to provide focused
instruction on the things they must do to succeed
• Trading a time-in-the-seat system for one that rewards
performance
• College entrants ready to do college-level work
26
Suggested Implementation
• Start with small number of representative
pilot site
• Set up feeder systems to include 2 and 4
year post-secondary institutions
• Consider Volunteer schools, volunteer
teachers, volunteer students
• Set up a specific diploma based on the
lower-division exams
• Expand as system proves itself
27
Accountability and Assessment
• After 2 years of data collection, will be able to
compare MS with other states
• Nine other states involved: Arizona, Connecticut,
Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, Vermont
• State Board Exams will be utilized in the
MS Accountability Model as data become
available.
• State Board Exam Systems mesh well with
Common Core State Standards & Assessments.
28
Next Steps
• State Board of Education approved
implementation of pilot sites – Jan. 21, 2011
• Hold information session for other interested
districts
• Help arrange assistance to districts from NCEE
• Identify policies which need discussion to
allow full implementation of the pilots
• Provide venue for district dialogue about
successes and obstacles.
29
Educator Code of Ethics
30
Standards of Conduct
Standard 1: Professional Conduct
Standard 2: Trustworthiness
Standard 3: Unlawful Acts
Standard 4. Educator /Student Relationships
Standard 5. Educator Collegial Relationships
Standard 6. Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco Use or Possession
Standard 7: Public Funds and Property
Standard 8: Remunerative Conduct
Standard 9: Maintenance of Confidentiality
Standard 10: Breach of Contract or Abandonment of Employment
31
Recommendations from
Teacher Shortage Task Force
32
House Bill 1047
• House Bill 1047 created a task force to study
strategies for solving Mississippi’s teacher
shortage.
• Final recommendations will be reported to the
Governor and the Legislature regarding
teacher attrition, retention and growth in our
state.
33
Task Force Focus Areas
•
•
•
•
Teacher salaries;
Future educators;
Working conditions of educators;
Relevant professional development for
educators;
• Safety and respect in the schools; and
• Parental and community involvement in
schools
34
Recommendations
1) Implement Project Clear Voice (teacher
working conditions survey) bi-annually
2) Commission a teacher supply and demand
study.
3) Increase the focus on future educator
initiatives in high schools, and create a
leadership training program at our
universities for junior and senior education
majors.
35
Recommendations
4) Revise the process to review Teacher
Education Programs.
5) Increase the entrance and exit program
requirements for prospective teachers.
6) Revise current Alternate Route Teacher
Preparation Programs, and establish a
new elementary preparation pathway.
36
Recommendations
7) Evaluate the Critical Teacher Shortage
Act of 1998.
8) Create a comprehensive program that
aligns all teacher recruitment,
retention, and enhancement activities.
9) Commission a study to evaluate various
compensation models and national
initiatives.
10) Report findings to the Task Force by
December 31, 2011.
37
Review of Teacher Evaluation Model
38
Establish a Teacher and Principal
Evaluation System
The educator evaluation system will
provide a comprehensive process
that will focus on improving the
practice of teachers through targeted
professional development.
39
Multiple Measures
• The purpose of the evaluation must be
determined and then matched with
measures.
• Evaluations should consider multiple
measures of performance, primarily the
teacher’s impact on student academic
growth.
40
Design Standards
1
• All teachers should be evaluated at least
annually.
2
• Evaluations should be based on clear standards
of instructional excellence that prioritize student
learning.
3
• Evaluations should consider multiple measures
of performance, primarily the teacher’s impact on
student academic growth.
4
• Evaluations should employ four to five rating
levels to describe differences in teacher
effectiveness.
5
• Evaluations should encourage frequent
observations and constructive critical feedback.
6
• Evaluation outcomes must matter; evaluation
data should be a major factor in key employment
decisions about teachers.
41
Proposed Changes
• Incorporate student growth measures
• Reconsider the current teacher standards
• Consider including a “teacher self-reflection
instrument
• Maintain multiple rating levels, but consider
outcomes-based scale
• Include clear descriptors for each rating level
42
Teacher Evaluation Instruments
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Classroom observations
Instructional artifacts
Portfolios
Teacher self-report
Student surveys
Student performance measures
Combination models
43
Redesign Approach: Phase II
•
•
•
•
•
Prepare and Engage
Plan and Develop
Construct and Connect
Implement and Support
Assess and Revise
44
Teacher Evaluation Project:
Prepare and Engage
• Revision of Evaluation Instrument
–Stakeholder meetings (February)
–Revise instrument (February to June)
–District meetings (February to June)
–Communicate plan (March – July)
45
Teacher Evaluation Project:
Construct and Connect
•
•
•
•
Report progress of development (March)
Finalize new instruments (May)
Present new system to the State Board (June)
Instrument Validation
– District participation
– Conduct validation study (October - November)
46
Teacher Evaluation Project:
Implement and Support
• Create training materials (June)
• Train a cadre of 30 Appraisal Coaches (June)
– Work with 35 administrators
• Launch the new Teacher Appraisal System
Pilot (August)
47
Teacher Evaluation Project:
Assess and Revise
• Implement statewide communication system
(July – December)
• Forum (August)
• Bimonthly meetings with Appraisal Coach
Cadre (September – December)
• Reality Checkpoint (December)
• Assessment of Appraisal Instrument based on
implementation and feedback (December)
48
Teacher Evaluation
Implementation Time Line
• Year One: October 2010 – June 2011
 Research and develop educator evaluation system
• Year Two: July 2011 – June 2012
 Pilot the educator evaluation system in 10 selected schools
• Year Three: July 2012 – June 2013
 Field test the educator evaluation system in all school districts
• Year Four: July 2013 – June 2014
 Implement the educator evaluation system in all school districts
 Field test the administrator evaluation program in all school districts
• Year Five: July 2014 – June 2015
 Implement the teacher and administrator evaluation system and
report results
49
Closing Comments and Questions
Contact Info:
Dr. Daphne Buckley
dbuckley@mde.k12.ms.us.
Dr. Lynn House
lhouse@mde.k12.ms.us
50