Updates for 2014-2015
School Year
July-August 2014
Agenda
• Planning for Outcomes
• Strategic Plan and Reflection
• Identify data sources and determining root
causes
• Early Warning System
• Educator Evaluation/Roster Verification
• Educational Impact
It is important to know what
you are doing, but it is even
more important to know why
you are doing what you are
doing!
WVBE President
• Mrs. Manchin
Continuous School
Improvement
Educator
Evaluation
A-F
Accountability
System
Student
Achievement
Next Generation
Standards
Strategic
Planning
What has changed and
WHY?
• From NCLB to ESEA Flex
• From compliance to
evidence
• School Performance
• Strategic Plans
• High Quality Standards
– From compliance to
evidence of continuous
improvement
– Did you do it and DID IT
WORK? How do you know?
A Common Language
WVBE Policy 2322
...represents a coherent and aligned
set of expectations necessary to
transform schools into outcome
focused, innovative, accountable
learning organizations that can
prepare all students to be
contributing citizens for the global,
digital age of the 21st century.
Effective August 18, 2011
WV Standards for High
Quality Schools
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Positive Climate and Cohesive Culture
School Leadership
Standards-Focused Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Student Support Services and Family/Community Connections
Educator Growth and Development
Efficient and Effective Management
Continuous Improvement
High Quality Standards
• https://wvde.state.wv.us/apps/improvement/
standards/
Continuous School
Improvement
Educator
Evaluation
A-F
Accountability
System
Student
Achievement
Next Generation
Standards
Strategic
Planning
The New Focus…
• The new focus is not
just about the planning,
but the implementation
of the plan to get to the
end results of more
effective instruction and
higher student
achievement.
Why plan strategically?
• It gives schools a framework of
communication, connection and common
understanding.
• Common understanding is essential for
implementation of best practices in schools
in order to get to the desired results
(improved professional practice and
increased levels of student achievement).
The Strategic Plan is a year-long
monitoring process that documents
evidence of teacher effectiveness
and student achievement all year
long.
Strategic Plan Updates
• Online Template will include the (WVSIPPCounty)
• Reviewed by Office of School Improvement
• Due date will be sometime late Fall
• FOCUS is on planning and looking at the
various data sets.
• County-level resources or on-site training by
School Improvement Coordinators
School Improvement
Coordinators provide…
School Strategic Plan
Data
Identify Root
Causes
Monitoring
Vision
Implementation
Action Steps
Mission
Set Goals
Core Beliefs
Types of Data
•
•
•
•
Demographic
Perceptual
School Process
Student Learning
WESTEST Data
• County and School PDF Reports: End of
August – Middle of September
• Individual Student Reports: Working with
CTB and Vendor-End of September is the
goal
Data Analysis
Items to consider:
1. Self reflection on the High Quality Standards
2. Educator Evaluation Data
3. School Walk Through data
4. School Culture Data
5. Student Data from WESTEST
6. Benchmark Test
Questions to ask:
• What results are found in the data(desirable and
undesirable)? Why?
• What do those results indicate?
• What is the Vision for change?
• What is the Mission for the change?
• How does this data reflect the core beliefs of the
organization?
• What are the Action Steps that must be taken?
Actual Data Sources
Samples of Evidence Collection
And
Data Disaggregation
Self-Reflection on High Quality
Standards
Click to review the
completed rubric
for each Function.
School Strategic Plan
Data
Identify Root
Causes
Monitoring
Vision
Implementation
Action Steps
Mission
Set Goals
Core Beliefs
Using the Data
Data should be used to identify root
causes…
What does this look like?
Continuous School
Improvement
Educator
Evaluation
A-F
Accountability
System
Student
Achievement
Next Generation
Standards
Strategic
Planning
Addressing the Dropout Challenge
The Early Warning System
Who is BrightBytes?
• Mission-Driven
Organization
• Former Educators
• Technology Experts
• Educative, Engaging, and
Actionable
• Tens of Thousands of
School Nationwide
GRADES
LESS THAN 1.5 GPA FOR THE YEAR
ATTENDANCE
MISSING MORE THAN 10% OF THE YEAR
OFFICE REFERRALS
GREATER THAN 5 OFFICE REFERRALS IN A MONTH
Linked to
Research
Easy to
Understand
and Share
Actionable
Easy to Start
Easy to Use
What’s Next?
•
Professional Development and
Training in the Fall
•
Access to BrightBytes Support
Stay Tuned for More!
Thank you
@BrightBytes
Educator Evaluation
Objectives
1) Bring educators up-to-date on
changes to both Policy 5310 and the
Educator Evaluation System.
2) Refresh educators on the components
of the evaluation system.
3) Explore best practices within the
evaluation system.
Resources & Tools
Graphic Organizer provided:
What? When? Why?
The provided graphic
organizer can be used in both
the Evaluation Session and
Roster Verification Session.
Revisions to the 15%
• At the end of the 2012-2013 school year, the
WVDE received a notification from the USDE
requesting modifications to the WV Educator
Evaluation System.
• Policy 5310 pilots changes to the Student
Growth / Learning Goals Component (15%)
during the 2014-2015 school year.
– Changes take full effect during the 2015-2016
school year.
2014-2015 School Year
Four
Performance
Levels
Advanced
Progression
6+ years
Intermediate
Progression
4-5 years
Initial
Progression
1-3 years
Distinguished
Accomplished
Emerging
Summative Evaluation Conference
Unsatisfactory
2015-2016: Math/RLA
Four
Performance
Levels
Advanced
Progression
6+ years
Intermediate
Progression
4-5 years
Initial
Progression
1-3 years
Distinguished
Accomplished
Emerging
Summative Evaluation Conference
Unsatisfactory
Four
Performance
Levels
School Leader and Counselor
Distinguished
Accomplished
Emerging
Unsatisfactory
Summative Evaluation Conference
Levels of Performance
Distinguished
Accomplished
Emerging
Unsatisfactory
Distinguished
performance
describes
professional teaching
that engages
students to be highly
responsible for their
own learning.
Performing at this
level involves
contributing to the
professional learning
of others through
teacher leadership.
Accomplished
performance
describes
professional teaching
that exhibits mastery
of the work of
teaching while
improving practice
and serving the
professional
community.
Emerging
performance
represents teaching
that demonstrates
knowledge and skills
to implement
essential elements
albeit not always
successfully at times.
Unsatisfactory
performance
describes teaching
that does not convey
sufficient
understanding of
concepts or the
successful
implementation of
essential elements.
WV Professional
Teaching Standards
• The five Professional Teaching Standards used
in the evaluation system are derived from the
West Virginia Professional Teaching Standards
• www.wvde.state.wv.us/evalwv
– Click Teacher menu link
– Click Teacher Evaluation Rubrics
Self-Reflection
Due October 1st
Why Do Educators Self- Reflect?
• Take Ownership of Professional Growth
• Establish an Understanding between Evaluator
and Educator
– What are the expectations set for the
educator?
– Has the educator met those expectations at
the end of the year?
Self-Reflection: Myth vs. Fact
• Myth: Administrator guides the teacher in Selfreflection.
• Fact: Self-reflections are driven solely by the
teacher.
• Myth: Educators must revise their completed
Self-reflections during the school year.
• Fact: Self-reflections have proven to be one of the
most beneficial components of the evaluation
system.
Goal Setting
Who Sets Goals?
• All teachers are required to set 2 student
learning goals.
– 15% of evaluation based upon the results of
their student learning goals.
Looking Ahead . . .
• 2015-2016: Teachers of tested grades and
subjects (Mathematics and
Reading/Language Arts) in grades 4-11 will
not be required to set student learning goals.
– 15% of their evaluation will be based upon the
results of state summative assessment of
rostered students.
Goal Setting
Due November 1st
Ensuring Meaningful Goals
S
M
A
R
T
Specific
Measureable
Achievable
Relevant
Time-bound
Senate Bill 359:
rd
Reading by 3 grade
• The revised Policy 5310 contains the
requirement for all PK-3rd grade teachers to
focus one of their student learning goals on
reading.
Goals Across the System
• Teacher
• Principal
• Counselor
2 student
learning goals
(2014-2015)
1 student
learning goal
2 goals targeted
at performance
improvement
1 goal around a
professional
standard
Due in system
November 1
Due in system
November 1
Due in system
November 1
Reviewing Student
Learning Goals
•
•
Reviewing Student Learning Goals
Is the Goal S.M.A.R.T.?
•
Is the goal Specific? If it is a specific goal, you should be able to answer the
following questions:
•
Is the goal measurable? If goal is specific and measurable, one should be
able to establish concrete criteria for measuring progress toward the
attainment of each one.
•
Is the goal attainable? Given resources available, goal must be realistic and
attainable.
•
Is the goal relevant? Ultimately, goals should help achieve better student
outcome.
•
Is your goal time-bound? Goals should have starting points, ending points,
and fixed durations.
http://wvde.state.wv.us/evalwv/resources.php
Educator Evidence
• Who Collects the Evidence?
– Both the Evaluator and the Educator may
collect evidence.
• When is evidence required?
– If you rate yourself as distinguished.
– If your self-reflection differs from the opinion of
your evaluator.
– When an “Unsatisfactory” rating is given.
Educator Evidence
• Are Educators required to upload
Evidence?
– No. The Evidence Form is intended to
document Evidence to be verified.
• How much Evidence is needed?
– Can be as simple as a description with
date/time.
– Portfolios/Binders full of
Documentation are NOT NEEDED!!
Educator Evidence
Formal Observations as Evidence
• Initial Progression
• Four Annually
• Intermediate Progression
• Two Annually
• Advanced Progression
• Not required, but may be requested
Educator Evidence
• Best Practices – Teachers submit all evidence
prior to the Summative Evaluation Conference.
– A description of all evidence to be considered should
be entered into the online system.
• Best Practices- Teachers do not bring new
evidence to the Summative Evaluation
Conference.
– Lesson plans/artifacts can be requested for review by
the evaluator prior to the conference.
Plans for Continuous Support
When is a Focused Support
Plan Needed?
• Area of concern identified
• Proactive, preventative measure
needed
• Support for struggling educator
Focused Support Plan
Components
• Area of concern/standard(s) identified
• Expectation for change
• Purposeful conversation between
evaluator and educator
• 9 week timeline for implementation
• Specific resources for support
Focused Support Plan
Conclusion of Nine Week Plan
Does evidence demonstrate—
• Standard met? Remove from the FSP
• Adequate progress? Implement another
Focused Support Plan
• Inadequate progress? Move to a
Corrective Action Plan
When is a Corrective Action
Plan Needed?
• Inadequate progress on focused support
plan (if applicable)
• Unsatisfactory performance determined
• Misconduct that requires immediate
action (W. Va. Code §18A-2-8) and/or a
CAP
Corrective Action Plan
Components
• Unsatisfactory performance with reference
to the standard(s) to be addressed
• Expectations for change
• 18 Week timeline for implementation
• Specific resources for support
Corrective Action Plan
Conclusion of 18 Week CAP
Does evidence demonstrate—
• Standard met? CAP successful
• Standard not met? CAP may not be
repeated. Personnel action needed.
Changes to Policy 5310
• Policy now requires that an observation is
complete prior to an educator being placed
on FSP and CAP.
– Having a completed observation is a matter of
best practice.
– Having a completed observation prior to an
FSP/CAP builds trust between educator and
evaluator.
What It Means To
“Meet the
Standard”
• FSP and CAP are identified areas of weakness
-Meeting a standard does not equate to DISTINGUISHED.
• Meeting the standard means the educator has met the
minimum performance expectations for that standard
-AKA- Minimum of “Emerging” rating achieved.
SUMMATIVE EVALUATION
Policy 5310 Update
• Policy 5310 extends the deadline for the
completion of Counselor and Teacher
Summative Evaluations.
– Counselor Summative Evaluations to be
completed no later than June 15.
– Teacher Summative Evaluations to be completed
1) Prior to teacher’s last day in classroom OR 2) No
later than June 15 (Whichever occurs first).
End of Year Procedure
What is the appropriate procedure for
Summative Evaluations at the end of the year?
1. Evaluator and educator conduct Summative
Evaluation Conference.
2. Evaluator finalizes the Summative Evaluation
prior to close of the school year.
End of Year Procedure
3. Educator accepts the Summative Evaluation
prior to the end of the school year. Educator
may also add addendum to evaluation at this
time.
4. School-wide growth data is inserted into
system during the fall of the next school year.
5. Educator finalizes their evaluation after
growth data is available.
Reports and Monitoring
SAMPLE School Evaluation Report
16
14
12
10
Unsatisfactory
8
Emerging
6
Accomplished
4
Distinguished
2
0
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
1
2
3
4
5
6
Roster Verification Overview
© 2014, Battelle for Kids. All Rights Reserved.
Why Roster Verification?
WVEIS data cannot accurately track a Record
of Teaching . . . Can only track the Teacher of
Record.
Roster Verification enhances state
educational data quality for many purposes:
- Highly Qualified Teacher Data
- Loan Forgiveness Data / Process
Why Roster Verification?
Beginning in 2014-2015, high stakes evaluation
decisions for PreK-3 and CTE/OIEP educators
depend upon roster verification results.
Beginning in 2015-2016, high stakes evaluation
decisions for RLA and Mathematics educators
(Grades 4-11) depend upon roster verification
results.
The Opportunity
What Roster Verification Achieves
•
Roster Verification allows teachers to help district data systems correct
these data sins:
–
–
–
–
Teacher-subject attribution
Student-teacher attribution
Student and teacher mobility
Situations where multiple teachers shared
responsibility for instruction and student learning
The Opportunity
The Process Is Simple for teachers…It’s as easy as 1-2-3
1- Teachers verify which students they taught
2- Teachers verify during what months they
taught those students
3- Teachers verify the percent of instruction
Trainings
Detailed system training will be provided for
RESA, District, and School personnel
beginning in the Fall.
Training PowerPoints, Videos, & Materials
Currently Available at:
http://wvde.state.wv.us/evalwv/trainings
Accessing the Demo Site:
Phase 1 - School Set up
(Principals Only)
Go to demo.battelleforkids.org
Enter Stanley Foley’s email:
foley.Stanley@demodistrict42A.org
foley.Stanley@demodistrict43A.org
foley.Stanley@demodistrict44A.org
foley.Stanley@demodistrict45A.org
foley.Stanley@demodistrict46A.org
All passwords are “school”
*Info. within Training PPT found at: http://wvde.state.wv.us/evalwv/trainings
Accessing the Demo Site:
Phase 2 -Teacher RV
Go to demo.battelleforkids.org
Enter Joan Bartlett’s email:
Bartlett.joan@demodistrict41A.org
Bartlett.joan@demodistrict42A.org
Bartlett.joan@demodistrict43A.org
Bartlett.joan@demodistrict44A.org
Bartlett.joan@demodistrict45A.org
All passwords are “school”
*Info. within Training PPT found at: http://wvde.state.wv.us/evalwv/trainings
Accessing the Demo Site:
Phase 3 - Principal Review
and Approval
Go to demo.battelleforkids.org
Enter Stanley Foley’s email:
foley.stanley@demodistrict42B.org
foley.stanley@demodistrict43B.org
foley.stanley@demodistrict44B.org
foley.stanley@demodistrict45B.org
foley.stanley@demodistrict46B.org
All passwords are “school”
*Info. within Training PPT found at: http://wvde.state.wv.us/evalwv/trainings
Thank you!
BattelleforKids.org
@BattelleforKids
facebook.com/battelleforkidsorg
youtube.com/battelleforkids
Educational Impact
•
•
•
•
Access
Tutorial
Connection to Standards
WVSIPP
• www.educationalimpact.com
Continuous School
Improvement
Educator
Evaluation
A-F
Accountability
System
Student
Achievement
Next Generation
Standards
Strategic
Planning
99
Policy 2320: A Process for Improving
Education: Performance Based
Accreditation System
• In January 2014, as part of his State-of-the-State Address,
Governor Tomblin asked the WV Board of Education to
establish a simple A-F School Grading System.
• The WVBOE, working with the WVDE and OEPA, developed a
system that unites school accountability and school and
district accreditation into a single process.
• Policy 2320 was placed on public comment on April 9, 2014
and approved on May 14, 2014 to become effective July 1,
2014.
• Schools will receive their first A-F grade for the 2014-15
school year based on the data from the 2014-15 assessment.
Policy 2320
• The WVDE will compile the data and assign each school a
grade based upon the criteria set by the WVBOE.
• The OEPA will review the results of the school audits to verify
the grades can be assigned without modification and report
them to the WVBOE.
• The WVBOE will accept and officially release the school
grades.
• High performing schools will be recognized and low
performing schools will receive supports and assistance.
101
Policy 2320-Foundational
Understandings
• All children can learn...
• The WVBE has the responsibility to define the outcomes and
hold schools and school systems accountable for those
outcomes.
• The level of quality and equity of each West Virginia school
must be public knowledge...
• The school is the unit of change; local, regional and state
resources must focus according to need and level of
performance.
• The capacity for excellence resides in every school…
Measuring What We Value
• All students learning
• All students showing significant improvement rather
than just incremental improvement
• All students exhibiting growth at a rate that moves
them to proficiency over time
• All students performing at their highest levels
• Accelerating the growth of those lowest performing
students
103
Grading Components
• Achievement: Includes student proficiency in
mathematics and reading/language arts.
• Student growth: Includes how much students are
growing (observed) and how much students are on track
to be proficient (adequate).
• Performance of Lowest 25%: Includes the accelerated
improvement of the lowest 25% of students in each
school.
• Graduation rates for high schools: High schools will be
awarded points based on each school’s four-year and
five-year adjusted cohort graduation rates.
Grade Designations
A = distinctive student proficiency
B = commendable student proficiency
C = acceptable student proficiency
D = unacceptable student proficiency
F = lowest student proficiency
105
Policy 2320
Elementary/Middle Schools
High Schools
Math Proficiency
Reading Proficiency
Math Observed Growth
Reading Observed Growth
Math Adequate Growth
Reading Adequate Growth
200 points
200 points
100 points
100 points
100 points
100 points
Math Proficiency
Reading Proficiency
Math Observed Growth
Reading Observed Growth
Math Adequate Growth
Reading Adequate Growth
200 points
200 points
100 points
100 points
100 points
100 points
Accelerated Performance of the
Lowest 25% in Math
100 points
Accelerated Performance of the
Lowest 25% in Math
100 points
Accelerated Performance of the
Lowest 25% in Reading
100 points
4-Year Graduation Rate
5-Year Graduation Rate
100 points
100 points
Accelerated Performance of the
Lowest 25% in Reading
100 points
Total Points
1000 points Total Points
106
1200 points
Results: Math
Not Proficient
(53%)
Proficient
(47%)
27% are
Catching Up
64% are
Keeping Up
73% are
Falling Behind
36% are
Falling Behind
107
Results: RLA
Not Proficient
(50%)
Proficient
(50%)
32% are
Catching Up
70% are
Keeping Up
68% are
Falling Behind
30% are
Falling Behind
108
109
1.
Proficiency Rates
–
–
2.
200 points based on % proficient in Math
200 points based on % proficient in E/LA
Observed Growth
–
–
3.
100 points based on % of students exhibiting at least typical growth in Math
100 points based on % of students exhibiting at least typical growth in E/LA
Adequate Growth
–
–
4.
100 points based on % of students meeting or exceeding growth target in Math
100 points based on % of students meeting or exceeding growth target in E/LA
Lowest 25%: bottom quartile of students in the school
–
–
5.
100 points based on the % of students in the bottom 25% exhibiting high
growth in Math
100 points based on the % of students in the bottom 25% exhibiting high
growth in E/LA
Graduation Rates for High School
–
–
100 points based on % of students graduating in the 4-year cohort
100 points based on % of students graduating in the 5-year cohort
Points of Clarity
• Priority and Focus status remains a federal requirement
but will not impact school grades
• Priority Schools
– Still at the 5th percentile of Title I schools
– Based on total index rather than just proficiency (should have
little effect because of proficiency being so heavily embedded
in the index)
• Focus Schools
– Two definitions in USDOE guidance
• Schools with the greatest achievement gaps (used in current system)
• Lowest performing subgroups (used in amendment)
– Finalized once impact data are available to ensure
representation of appropriate students
• Supports required for both as we currently have in place
• Those currently identified will remain for the initial 3
year period with new schools identified in 2016-17
112
School Improvement
Coordinators provide…
For support contact your
assigned Coordinator and
Michele Blatt
mlblatt@k12.wv.us