! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Discussion Materials: Educator Effectiveness and the Measures of Student Learning (MSL/Common Exams) Superintendents’ Quarterly Meeting July 25, 2013 ! 1! ! Federal Definition of Student Growth: Student Growth: “Student growth” is the change in student achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time. For the purpose of this definition, student achievement means— · For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): (1) a student’s score on such assessments and may include (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in the second bullet, provided they are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA. · For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; student learning objectives; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA. The United States Department of Education has used this definition in Race to the Top and the waivers from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Department of Education has also provided the following answer in response to a question about the original ESEA waiver process. May an SEA request only a portion of this flexibility [waiver from ESEA]? No. An SEA may not request a portion of this flexibility or implement only some of its principles. This flexibility is intended to build on and support the significant State and local reform efforts already underway in critical areas such as transitioning to college- and career-ready standards and aligned highquality assessments; developing systems of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; and evaluating and supporting teacher and principal effectiveness. Only through such comprehensive efforts can SEAs and LEAs truly increase the quality of instruction and improve student academic achievement. NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 2 of 37 ! Notice of Flexibility on State Waivers from Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Letter to Chief State School Officers on Graduation Rate Data and Race to the Top -- Printable 7/2/13 3:37 PM Close Window Print Key Policy Letters from the Education Secretary and Deputy Secretary June 18, 2013 June 18, 2013 RELATED DOCUMENTS Dear Chief State School Officers: Fact sheet Over the last four years, state and local leaders and educators across America have embraced an enormous set of urgent and long-overdue challenges: raising standards and upgrading curricula to better prepare students to compete in the global economy, developing new assessments, rebuilding accountability systems to meet the unique needs of each state and better serve at-risk students, and adopting new systems of support and evaluation for teachers and principals. Meeting this historic set of challenges all at once asks more of everybody throughout the education sector, and it is a tribute to the quality of educators, leaders, and elected officials across this country that so many have stepped up. Homeroom Blog: New flexibility for states implementing fastmoving reforms (June 18, 2013) State-by-State Timeline Implementation Chart Throughout this process, states and districts have established high goals for themselves: college- and career-ready standards for all; higher graduation rates and college enrollment rates; high expectations for critical thinking, problem-solving, and other 21st century skills; ambitious and achievable performance targets that really move the needle for kids at risk; and useful, rigorous systems of evaluation and support for teachers and principals based on multiple measures, including student growth. The Department has offered flexibility to enable states and districts to meet these goals. In a country as diverse as ours, where schools and students have different educational challenges, one-size-fits-all solutions have not worked. We have also aligned our grant programs to support states willing to lead this important work, and the result is that some states are further along than others, but all states are engaged in significant improvement efforts and students are better off for it. In recent months, we have heard from many of you and from thousands of teachers, principals, and education advocates. While there is a broad sense that these far-reaching changes carry enormous promise for schools, children, and the future of our country, there is caution that too much change all at once could undermine our collective progress. I fully appreciate both the courage to tackle so many challenges at once and the burdens this imposes on front-line educators – teachers, principals, school boards, and administrators – who are committed to doing this work well. With that in mind, the Department is open to additional flexibility for states in two critical areas: the first relates to one particular element of teacher and leader evaluation and support system implementation, and the second addresses "double-testing" during the transition to new assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards. First, I want to address the implementation of teacher and leader evaluation and support systems. States that have received a Race to the Top grant or flexibility under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) are responsible for working with districts to develop systems to evaluate and support principals and teachers based on multiple measures, including student growth. States have committed to different deadlines to implement these systems: some are implementing now; others will begin over the coming years. Given the move to college- and career-ready standards, the dramatic changes in curricula that teachers and principals are now starting to teach, and the transition to new assessments aligned to those standards, the Department will consider, on a state-bystate basis, allowing states up to one additional year before using their new evaluation systems to inform personnel determinations. To be specific, states that request and are given this flexibility may delay any personnel consequences, tied in part to the use of student growth data, until no later than 2016–2017. We recognize that, http://www2.ed.gov/print/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/130618.html NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 1 of 2 Page 3 of 37 ! Letter to Chief State School Officers on Graduation Rate Data and Race to the Top -- Printable 7/2/13 3:37 PM for many states, it will not make sense to request this flexibility because they are already well ahead in successfully implementing these changes or have requirements in state law. States interested in this extension may request this change, before September 30, 2013, through the current ESEA flexibility amendment process. Details about the amendment process are available on the ESEA flexibility Web page (http://www2.ed.gov/esea-flexibility). As each state implements college- and career-ready standards, it must have a robust plan for supporting teachers and principals as they transition to the new standards and assessments. States will need to lay out those plans in detail in the ESEA flexibility renewal process, along with indicators of teacher and principal familiarity and comfort with these new materials. The second issue I want to address is that of "double-testing" during the transition from the current statewide assessments to new assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards. During the 2013–2014 school year, some schools will be involved in the important work of field testing new assessments. We want to support states that would like to avoid double-testing students, which as you know often happens during the shift to a new test. Therefore, we would consider requests from states for a one-year waiver, to allow schools participating in these field tests to administer only one assessment in 2013–2014 to any individual student — either the current statewide assessment or the field test. We would also consider a request for those schools to retain their Federal accountability designations for an additional year during which the same targeted interventions would have to continue, with no relaxation of accountability requirements. Details about the Title I waiver process are available at http://www.ed.gov/titlei-waiver. Our country continues to face challenges as we work together toward achieving educational excellence for all children, and the timing of these actions has real consequences for students in the real world. The point of raising standards is to prepare students for tomorrow's challenges rather than yesterday's. Their readiness has real consequences for their lives, and the nation's economic health. Yet this effort will only succeed if all parties have the time, resources, and support needed to make the journey from the inadequate standards of the past to the ambitious standards of tomorrow. As the highest-ranking education official in your states, you define the path and the pace for how states and schools will make that journey. Our job in Washington is to support you. In the coming days, the Department will provide more information on the flexibility discussed above; my staff will reach out to you and your teams to provide assistance. On behalf of the Obama Administration, I deeply appreciate your leadership and courage. I also appreciate your honest feedback and the feedback of your principals and teachers. Above all, I salute your continuing determination to advance reforms that will benefit millions of students in states and across America. This is hard work and the need for change is urgent. Sincerely, /s/ Arne Duncan cc: Council of Chief State School Officers Close Window Print Last Modified: 06/20/2013 http://www2.ed.gov/print/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/130618.html NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 2 of 2 Page 4 of 37 ! Options for Moving Forward with Educator Effectiveness Model North Carolina’s Race to the Top contract and waiver from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act require the State to measure student growth and include it explicitly in the evaluation of all teachers. To meet this requirement, North Carolina has several options: 1. Continue with each school district using the Measures of Student Learning (MSL/Common Exams) and collaborate to improve the process. Possible steps for improvement include: • State prints the Common Exams and ships to school districts • State includes greater specificity in Scoring Rubrics (if constructed response items remain) • State removes constructed-response items • State requires that Common Exams replace teacher-made final exams • State requires that Common Exams count a defined percentage of student’s grade statewide • Continue with research on how to assess Arts Education, Healthful Living, and World Languages 2. Allow each school district to elect to develop its own system of measuring student growth according to the federal definition of student growth. Each district’s process for determining validity and reliability would require approval by the State Board of Education, local board of education chair, local superintendent, and district teacher representative. 3. Allow each school district to elect to use school-wide growth from EOC and EOG assessments to populate the sixth standard for all teachers in non-tested areas. Decision would require approval by local board chair, local superintendent, and district teacher representative. 4. Allow each school district to elect to combine Options 2 and 3. Decision would require approval by local board chair, local superintendent, and district teacher representative. 5. Other ! ! ! NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 5 of 37 ! Language from Senate Bill 402 PAY FOR EXCELLENCE Section 9.5. When a robust evaluation instrument and process that accurately assesses and evaluates the effectiveness of teachers, especially in the area of student growth, is wholly implemented in North Carolina, it is the intent of the General Assembly that the evaluation instrument and process be utilized in the implementation of a plan of performance pay for teachers in this State. NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 6 of 37 ! Letter on Measures of Student Learning from North Carolina Teacher of the Year, Karyn Dickerson(*) (*) All text emphasis is from Ms. Dickerson’s original letter. Measures of Student Learning/Common Exams: A Teacher’s Perspective At the end of the last school year, Common Exams were criticized by several different parties. I would like to offer some opinions concerning Common Exams and their implementation that might help put the criticisms into perspective and offer some suggestions for improvement. The Format of the Common Exams First of all, I want to state that I thought the Common Exams were good measures of student learning. I have been frustrated since I started teaching at the discrepancies within schools, school districts, and the state in the level of rigor addressed in teacher-made final exams. Students taking the same class with different teachers could take very different exams, and the grades students received on the exams and in the classes varied widely. Furthermore, some teachers opted out of creating and administering exams that included a constructed response. Even some of my fellow English teachers did not include written portions on their exams in the past because they feared it would be too time consuming to read all of the essays. I often questioned how we were ever going to implement true writing across the curriculum if even English teachers were not including written portions on their exams. The new Common Exams allow for more consistent rigor on final exams and require that all subject areas include a constructed response portion. I believe that constructed responses not only help improve the writing skills of our students, skills that many colleges have stated students are woefully lacking, but also move our students towards more twenty-first century ways of thinking. In this day and age, the acquisition of facts is not as important as the application of those facts. Constructed responses require students to develop their higher order thinking skills and are essential to help teachers understand what concepts need to be taught in a clearer, more indepth way. The new Common Exams helped address all of these gaps in previous teacher-made assessments. The Common Exams also encouraged important collaboration among teachers as they had to score students’ responses and discuss ways to improve the results for their students in the future. I found that during the school year, teachers worked together much better in preparation for the exams than they have in previous years. In my experience, it was often only the teachers of EOCs that collaborated on a regular basis to share best practices, NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 7 of 37 ! but this year with the implementation of the Common Exams, I saw much more collaboration throughout my school and in different content areas. Now that teachers know what the exams look like, I foresee even more collaboration next year. Concerns about Timing of the Common Exams In spite of many of the strengths of the format of the exams, the rushed implementation of the exams created a great deal of stress for many teachers. I believe that this is the primary reason why teachers complained about the exams. Teachers have experienced many changes over the past several years. There have been new systems to learn (NCWise, PowerSchool, McRel Evaluations, PEP online software in some districts for student intervention, Home Base) as well as significant changes to content in the Common Core and Essential Standards. I think most teachers would state that they support the new standards, but the number of changes in such a short span of time has exhausted many teachers. They are putting in numerous hours after school and over the summer learning new standards, creating new lesson plans, and reworking their assessments. They are also spending a great deal of time trying to communicate these changes to parents and other educational stakeholders. For many school districts, last year was the first year that the Common Core and Essential Standards were fully adopted. To expect teachers to master the new standards, find the best ways to teach their students to address the new standards, implement more technology than ever, and complete all of the above with few corresponding resources led to many teachers feeling overwhelmed. Numerous hours were spent trying to find resources to address the standards, and many teachers spent more money out of their pockets than ever before. Due to all of the significant changes in education over the past few years, I think DPI’s suggestion to count the 2013 Common Exams as pilot tests would help with teacher morale in the state. Teachers want to do well and want their students to do well. The lack of time to truly master the new content before administering a new exam caused a great deal of frustration among teachers. The morale of my fellow coworkers was the lowest I have ever seen during exams and in the month leading up to them. Adding to the stress for teachers was the last-minute notification of testing plans and policies within school districts. Problems with Flexibility among School Districts With the flexibility in individual school districts and in individual schools with how to administer the Common Exams, there was even more undue stress placed on teachers. As we heard in the presentation at the State Board of NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 8 of 37 ! Education meeting in July, some students had to take two final exams (both the Common Exam and a teacher-created exam)! That is way too much testing and grading at the end of the school year. There was also a wide range concerning when to administer the tests and how they would count for students. Because of this flexibility, some school districts and individual schools did not have a clear plan for testing until almost a month prior to the start of testing. The lack of a set policy until the end of the school year negatively impacted the attitudes of students, parents, and teachers towards the exams. At my school, we administered Common Exams the week before End of Course Exams. That meant that towards the end of the school year, teachers suddenly lost a week of instruction that they had planned on all year. For teachers like myself who spend time creating long-term plans and unit plans, this made the end of the year extremely stressful as I had to make significant changes to my plans at the last minute. Additionally, I had some concerns with some of the districts’ implementation of the constructed response scoring rubrics. Teachers in my school district were informed about three weeks prior to administering the Common Exams that in all exams except for English the constructed responses did not have to be written in paragraphs or even in complete sentences! Some teachers encouraged students to respond in bullet format on their exams, including social studies exams. This was surprising to me since history assessments at the college level require written responses in complete sentences. It seemed like the discrepancies in how to administer and score the exams defeated the initial purpose of the exam: to assess twenty-first century skills and the acquisition and application of important content. We need much more consistency across school districts in order for the Common Exams to be as effective as they have the potential to be in assessing the growth of our students and teacher affect. Conclusion In short, the Common Exams have a great deal of potential in assessing both the gains students have made during the course of a year and the efficacy of teacher instruction. I believe that these exams with a few modifications and increased consistency have the potential to serve as valuable forms of assessment that offer insightful feedback. If used effectively, they will prove to be much more than just another set of tests. NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 9 of 37 ! Letter on Common Exam Implementation from NCAE President, Mr. Rodney Ellis NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 10 of 37 ! NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 11 of 37 ! Proposal from Group of Superintendents The following superintendents have submitted a proposal on testing and educator effectiveness to Dr. Atkinson. The proposal follows this cover page. Authors: • • • • • • • • • • Dr. Eric Beacoats, Durham Public Schools Dr. Ed Croom, Johnston County Schools Dr. Mary Ellis, Union County Public Schools Dr. Beverly Emory (formerly of Pitt County Schools; currently of Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools) Mr. Maurice “Mo” Green (Guilford County Schools) Dr. Tim Markley (New Hanover County Schools) Dr. Donald Martin, Jr. (formerly of Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools) Mr. Reeves McGlohon (Gaston County Schools) Dr. Heath Morrison (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools) Dr. Frank Till (Cumberland County Schools) NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 12 of 37 ! Proposal for Testing in North Carolina This past school year (2012-13), Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in North Carolina administered over 190 state or national exams. The purposes of these exams ranged from assessing student learning to evaluating educator effectiveness. We embrace being accountable for student outcomes, but our state’s introduction of Common Exams as a measure of student learning has brought us to the point of too much testing. This focus on assessment has become a distraction from teaching and learning, presenting a hindrance to our charge to prepare every child, every day to be college and career ready. Overall, we have two primary concerns with our state’s implementation of Common Exams: Inadequate (Validity) Field Testing The twenty-two (22) Common Exams administered this school year were informed by teachers throughout the state over several months. This was an essential element of test production that should be acknowledged. Additional validity testing or field testing was required before these assessments were administered for the high stakes purpose of evaluating educator effectiveness. Concerns about the length of the assessment and the number of constructed response items surfaced in the fall. In the spring, concerns about the focus and content of questions were raised. Such issues need to be resolved before the results of assessments are used to evaluate a teacher’s impact on student learning. Drain on Teacher Morale and Time As our nation moves toward full implementation of the Common Core, our students are being asked to exhibit what they know and can do in more complex ways. That in turn requires us to design or adopt assessments that provide students with more authentic ways to show what they know. The inclusion of constructed response items provides such an opportunity. However, this shift in our assessments requires a commensurate shift in how we score and administer assessments. Our state’s approach to administering Common Exams has been to put the responsibility for making that latter shift squarely on LEAs, specifically teachers. Without the additional fiscal or programmatic support needed to score these new constructed response items, LEAs had to press teachers into action to score students’ exams. This scoring process, which LEAs were given the “flexibility” to design, required teachers in some large schools to dedicate over 20 hours each to appropriately score constructed response items. This took away from time usually reserved for lesson planning, work in professional learning communities, and grading other teacher developed assignments. The fact that this had to be done with no additional compensation negatively impacted teacher morale as teachers were asked to score tests they saw as flawed, to determine their own effectiveness. NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 13 of 37 ! We propose a three-fold solution to provide increased accountability and greater insight to teacher effectiveness, while requiring fewer assessments. They are as follows: 1. Treat the 2012-13 School Year as a Pilot Year The aforementioned challenges implementing Common Exams this past year, as well as others, creates a shaky foundation upon which to build our state’s educator effectiveness work. However, these shortcomings become an occasion for learning and improvement if leveraged well. Instead of charging forward despite our missteps, we propose that the 2012-13 school year be treated like a pilot year. This allows us to learn from last year’s implementation, make improvements, and launch this initiative with the benefit of those lessons in the 2013-14 school year. This would not compromise the initiative, but improve it. 2. Adopt a New Option for Determining Educator Effectiveness Based on data from 2010-11, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) estimates that End-of-Grade (EOG) and End-of-Course (EOC) assessments cover approximately 40 percent of North Carolina’s teacher workforce. Common Exams, as a measure of student learning, are intended to cover the remaining 60 percent of teachers. In our state’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility request, North Carolina proposed three options to determine a teacher’s effectiveness. Each option placed a weight on individual teacher impact and school-wide impact. We do not believe that every student needs to be tested in every subject in order to determine student growth and teacher effectiveness. For teachers in non-tested areas, we propose that teacher effectiveness be determined by overall school impact, as long as that impact is positive. If the overall school impact is negative, then teachers in non-tested areas should be evaluated based on standards 1-5, without consideration of student growth. Our proposed approach, though lacking the granularity of our current direction, can incent collective ownership for student results and school-wide collaboration, tenets seen in effective schools. We support the inclusion of student growth in teachers’ evaluations, but we need another option. We’re willing and interested in working to craft and implement such an alternative. 3. Focus on the Core Areas of English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies, through Grade 10, if Common Exams Must Be Administered North Carolina is currently on the path of assessing students in every grade in every subject to determine educator effectiveness. We support the Common Core and increased rigor, and desire a testing program that aligns with the Common Core. The expansion of our current testing program lacks that alignment. Nonetheless, if we must move forward with our expansion, we NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 14 of 37 ! propose that the administration of Common Exams target the areas of English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies through the 10th grade, with a reduced testing program in the middle grades. This scaled back expansion will increase our ability to determine student growth and teacher effectiveness while curtailing the number of tests administered. This slow-down of our expansion allows us to move prudently ahead during this time when our testing program is evolving. However, if the administration of Common Exams in subjects and grades currently identified must continue, we propose that Common Exams be composed of only multiple choice items. We offer these recommendations as the beginning of a larger dialogue on the reform of public education, which testing and accountability play prominent roles. Our aim is to prepare students equipped with 21st century skills to enter college or the workplace, and lead our communities. We seek modifications to our testing program to foster this focus on student learning and achievement. NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 15 of 37 ! Proposal for Testing In North Carolina Grade Level ELA/Reading Assessment Math Assessment Science Assessment Social Studies/History Assessment 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th EOG EOG EOG EOG EOG EOG English I MSL/Common Exam EOG EOG EOG EOG EOG EOG Algebra 1/Math 1 EOC None Science MSL EOG None Science MSL EOG * Physical Science MSL None None None None None None Civics Final Exam or MSL/Common Exam 10th English II EOC Algebra 2/ Math 2 or 3 MSL Biology EOC American History I Final Exam or MSL/Common Exam CTE Assessments Eliminate Local Assessments Eliminate Local Assessments Additional Assessments Locally Designed or Administered Assessments BOG of 3 ELA ClassScape/MAP ClassScape/MAP ClassScape/MAP ClassScape/MAP ClassScape/MAP ClassScape/MAP ClassScape EXPLORE Agriscience Applications Biomedical Technology Career Management Core & Sustainable Construction * Fashion Merchandising Health Team Relations MS Excel & Access * MS Word, Power Point & Publisher * Multimedia & Webpage Design Personal Finance Principles of Business & Finance Public Safety I Tech Engineering & Design Accounting I Animal Science I AOF Business Economics AOF Financial Services Apparel I Automotive Service Cabinetmaking I PLAN PSAT ClassScape 4 NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 16 of 37 ! Carpentry I * Drafting I Firefighter Tech I * Foods I Health Science I Horticulture I Interior Design I Intro to Culinary Arts & Hospitality Marketing Parenting & Child Development Principles of Tech I Scientific & Tech Visualization I Sports & Entertainment Market I 11th English III Final Exam Math 3 or Math 4 Final Exam *Chemistry Final Exam American History II Final Exam Accounting II Animal Science II - Small Animal Apparel II – Enterprise Automotive Brakes * Automotive Electrical Business Management Cabinetmaking II Carpentry II * Culinary Arts & Hospitality I Drafting II – Architectural Drafting II - Engineering Early Child Ed I Entrepreneurship I Firefighter II * Firefighter III * Foods II – Enterprise Health Science II Horticulture II Horticulture II Landscaping Hospitality & Tourism Interior Design II Marketing Management ACT ClassScape 5 NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 17 of 37 ! Principles of Tech II Scientific & Tech Visualization II Sports & Entertainment Market II Strategic Marketing 12th English IV Final Exam Final Exam Final Exam Final Exam AOF Business in a Global Economy AOF Applied Finance Auto Computer System Diagnostics Automotive Electrical Advanced * Business Law Carpentry III Culinary Arts & Hospitality II Early Child Ed II Entrepreneurship II Nursing Fundamentals *Indicated science course or one most appropriate for the LEA’s science course trajectory. WorkKeys We would like to eliminate the following MSLs/Common Exams in elementary and middle school grades: Grade 4 Social Studies, Grade 5 Social Studies, Grade 6 Science, Grade 6 Social Studies, Grade 7 Social Studies, and Grade 8 Social Studies. We would like to eliminate the following MSLs/Common Exams in high schools: English III, English IV, Geometry, Advanced Functions and Modeling, Pre-Calculus, Chemistry, Earth/Environmental Science, Physics, World History, OCS English III, OCS English IV, OCS Financial Management, OCS Introductory Math, OCS Applied Science, 21st Century Global Geography, Sociology, American Humanities, 21st Century Civil Liberties and Rights, Discrete Math, Psychology, World Humanities, The Cold War, and Turning Points in American History. We ask that schools not be required to administer an operational End-of-Grade or End-of-Course assessment and a field test in the same subject during any year. Approved industry recognized credential assessments may be used for technical attainment in lieu of CTE post assessments. CTE post assessments are required for federal accountability per the Carl D. Perkins CTE Improvement Act of 2006. 6 NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 18 of 37 ! Quality Assurance Checks for the Common Exams During the 2012-13 school year, hundreds of thousands of students took the Common Exams for the first time. The design of the Common Exams began in 2011 with a gathering of 800 teachers who provided feedback on how to assess their content standards. A set of those 800 teachers reviewed and approved the items that were generated as a result of their feedback. Thirty-nine school districts partnered with the Department of Public Instruction to administer the Common Exams during first semester. Their feedback informed decisions to the exams before second semester administration. The Department of Public Instruction has committed to rigorous internal and external quality assurance checks prior to the use of any Common Exam data for value-added analysis. The results from a Common Exam that does not pass these checks will not be used to generate teacher value-added scores. Internal Review by the Department of Public Instruction: ! Is the Common Exam reliable? Reliability describes the consistency or stability of student scores if a student were to take the exam multiple times. ! Is the Common Exam aligned with the content standards? The Department of Public Instruction has already completed this step. Multiple individuals have reviewed each Common Exam to ensure alignment with the content standards: " Department of Public Instruction Test Measurement Specialists " Department of Public Instruction Curriculum Specialists " NC State University Content Specialists " NC State University Specialists on Assessment for English Language Learners " NC State University Specialists on Assessment for Exceptional Children ! Does the Common Exam produce a desirable distribution of scores with a good spread across most of the scale? If the distribution is extremely negatively skewed or positively skewed, the test may not be useful for measuring growth of low ability or high ability students. Score distribution is a range, not clustered at one point on the scale. ! Does the Common Exam have any items that need to be removed, for example, an item that does not meet measurement of content criteria? If so, the Department removes the item from the test and any data analysis. NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 19 of 37 ! Only Common Exams that pass these quality assurance checks move on to the next stage of review. External Review by the EVAAS Team at the SAS Institute: ! Did the Common Exam “pass” the quality assurance checks completed by the Department of Public Instruction? ! Can the Common Exam measure the achievement of both high- and lowachieving students? This idea is referred to as the “stretch” of an assessment. ! Did enough students take the Common Exam? Value-added analysis is not possible when a very small group of students have exam results. ! Did enough teachers teach the course associated with the Common Exam? Value-added analysis is not possible when a very small number of teachers have taught the course. ! Can students’ prior test scores be used to predict students’ scores on the Common Exam? For example, when the Department of Public Instruction and SAS Institute explored value-added modeling for Career and Technical Education Post-Assessments, the scores for some PostAssessments could not be predicted. For others, a prediction model was possible. ! Are there sufficient differences among teacher value-added scores based on the Common Exam? In other words, do the results of the Common Exam provide measurable differences among teachers? When a Common Exam passes both the internal and external review, results will be used to inform a teacher’s value-added score and sixth standard rating in the NC Educator Evaluation System. NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 20 of 37 ! Discussion Questions on Improvement of Common Exams Administration As part of the teacher evaluation process, the Common Exams were administered for the first time in 2012–13 to North Carolina elementary, middle, and high school students. Throughout the school year, the NCDPI gathered feedback from teachers, students, parents, principals, and superintendents on the Common Exams and their administration procedures. Based on this feedback, the NCDPI is determining what changes may need to occur to the Common Exams for going forward. Listed below are the key items under discussion for change. 1. Currently the Common Exams are designed to be administered during a class period or during exam week, and the LEA determines the testing window. Should the testing window be restricted? 2. Currently the Common Exams are timed tests, and the testing time is 90 minutes for all Common Exams (elementary, middle, and high school). Schools have the option to administer the test in one school day (i.e., one 90 minute testing session) or in two school days (i.e., one 45 minute testing session on day one and one 45 minute testing session on day two). The 90 minutes does not include time for general instructions and a break. Should we continue with the 90-minute testing time? 3. In 2012–13, LEA test coordinators were responsible for downloading the appropriate Common Exams and all associated ancillary materials and for printing and distributing enough copies of these materials for their schools. LEAs were also responsible for purchasing the answer sheets for the exams. Should the State print the exams, ancillary materials, and answer sheets, or should the LEA continue to print the common exams and purchase the answer sheets? 4. Some LEAs gave a final exam in addition to the Common Exam. Should the Common Exams, where available, replace local final exams? 5. For 2012–13, LEAs were asked to determine if or how results from the Common Exams would be used in determining students’ final grades. Should Common Exams carry the same weight for grading EOCs (i.e., 25%), and should we change the EOC weight for grading to 15% and count the Common Exams also as 15%of the final grade? NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 21 of 37 ! 6. All Common Exams with the exception of four (i.e., OCS Applied Science, OCS Financial Management, OCS Introductory Math, and U.S. History) contained constructed response (CR) items. The number of CR items varied by test from 2–4 questions. Teachers supported the he inclusion of constructed response items, but the feedback has been both positive and negative (see chart below). Should the number of CR items be reduced or should they be removed from the exams for 2013–14? Positives/Negatives on the Common Exam Constructed Response Items Plus + Delta - Allows students to demonstrate what they know and are able to do Allows higher-level items Provides more engaging items than typical multiple-choice items Provides teachers with professional development (scoring process) ! Makes the tests too long Delays the turn-around of the scores at the high school for inclusion in the student’s final grade Requires teachers to participate in a scoring process, which some have reported is too time consuming Adds to inconsistency in grading across schools/LEAs ! NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 22 of 37 ! NC School District Recommendation for Moving Forward with NC Educator Effectiveness Model District Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ Superintendent Name (please print) & Signature: _____________________________________________________________________________ Please place a check mark next to your recommendation for moving forward with the educator effectiveness model. _____ 1. Continue with each school district using the Measures of Student Learning (MSL/Common Exams) and collaborate to improve the process. Possible steps for improvement include: • State prints the Common Exams and ships to school districts • State includes greater specificity in Scoring Rubrics (if constructed response items remain) • State uses only multiple-choice items • State requires that Common Exams replace teacher-made final exams • State requires that Common Exams count a defined percentage of student’s grade statewide • Continue with research on how to assess Arts Education, Healthful Living, and World Languages _____ 2. Allow each school district to elect to develop its own system of measuring student growth according to the federal definition of student growth. Each district’s process for determining validity and reliability would require approval by the State Board of Education, local board of education chair, local superintendent, and district teacher representative. _____ 3. Allow each school district to elect to use school-wide growth from EOC and EOG assessments to populate the sixth standard for all teachers in non-tested areas. Decision would require approval by local board chair, local superintendent, and district teacher representative. _____ 4. Allow each school district to elect to combine Options 2 and 3. Decision would require approval by local board chair, local superintendent, and district teacher representative. Comments: Please submit this form to the DPI staff member in your discussion group. NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 23 of 37 ! Slides from Today’s Meeting Educator Effectiveness and the Measures of Student Learning (MSL) Superintendents’ Quarterly Meeting, July 25, 2013 1" NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 24 of 37 ! Overview 1. Context and progress to date 2. Measures of Student Learning (MSL) for nontested grades and subjects • Common Exams • Other MSL 3. Recommendations for improvements to Common Exams 4. Options for moving forward (small groups) 2 NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 25 of 37 ! Context & Progress • Federal definition of “student growth” in Race to the Top (RttT) and ESEA waiver • NC’s RttT contract • NC’s ESEA waiver • USED’s flexibility only for “consequences” of educator effectiveness determination; full model must still be implemented 3 NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 26 of 37 ! Context & Progress NC’s Research-based Model Months of Learning Gained or Lost State Math Observation Tool Observation Tool + Student Survey Observation Tool + Student Survey + Growth (Value-Add) +1.2 Top 25% Bottom 25% -1.4 Top 25% Bottom 25% +.2 -.4 +2.8 -2 Top 25% Bottom 25% State ELA +.7 -.9 +4.5 -3.1 +1.2 -1.3 Re-creation of chart from Gathering Feedback For Teaching, http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Practioner_Brief.pdf NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 27 of 37 ! Measures of Student Learning Type of Assessment Specific to Grade/Subject or Course 6 End of Grade or End of Course Contribute to Academic Success 6 6 Common Exams 6 CTE Assessment 6 K-3 Assessments 6 Analysis of Student Work To learn more about the Measures of Student Learning, please visit http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/effectiveness-model/ resources/measures-guide.pdf 5 NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 28 of 37 ! Improving Common Exams Using ESEA Flexibility to make 2012-13 a “Pilot” Year USED is offering the opportunity to request postponing any consequences of educator effectiveness until 2016-17 2010-11 2011-12 Adding Standard 6 Standard 6 added, but (Development) data does not “count” and is not published (Development) 2012-13 Proposal: MSL given… but Standard 6 data doesn’t “count” (Pilot) 2013-14 2014-15 Year 1 Year 2 2015-16 Year 3 First Effectiveness Status 6 NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 29 of 37 ! Improving Common Exams by Addressing Administration Challenges • Require that the Common Exams replace teacher-made exams • Limit testing window • Review time for testing • Print exams and materials at the State • Require that the Common Exams count in final grades for high school students • Reduce/eliminate the constructed-response items NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly 7 Page 30 of 37 ! Options for Maintaining Educator Effectiveness Model Option 1 Option 2 Continue with each school district using the Measures of Student Learning (Common Exams) and collaborate to improve the process. Allow each school district to elect to develop its own system of measuring student growth according to the federal definition of student growth. Each district’s process for determining validity and reliability would require approval of the State Board, local board chair, local superintendent, and teacher representative. ! Option 3 Allow each school district to elect to use school-wide growth from EOC and EOG assessments to populate the sixth standard for all teachers in non-tested areas. District plan would require approval of local board chair, local superintendent, and teacher representative. ! Option 4 Allow each school district to elect to combine Options 2 and 3. District plan would require approval of local board chair, local superintendent, and teacher representative.! 8 NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 31 of 37 ! Small Group Discussions 1. Consider options 2. Record your recommendation 3. Everyone shares thoughts 9" NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 32 of 37 ! North Carolina’s Approval for ESEA Flexibility NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 33 of 37 ! NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 34 of 37 ! NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 35 of 37 ! NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 36 of 37 ! NCDPI/Superintendents’ Quarterly Page 37 of 37