Body of Evidence Work Institute

Presented by Julie Mathiesen, TIE Deputy Director

Please remember to sign in each session

Morning and Afternoon

Signup sheets will be at back table

September 25-26, 2008

November 12-13, 2008

February 9-10, 2009

April 1-2, 2009

September: Getting Started/Descriptive Feedback/Planning for November, February, April

November: Standard Setting (based on district feedback)

February: Mock peer review using protocol and descriptive feedback/work time

April?

• Fremont School District #1

• Wyoming Assessment Consortium

• Technology in Innovation for Education (TIE)

• Mark Taylor: Afton• Betsy Sell: Cody• Dave Treick: Cody• Teresa Chaulk: Diamondville• John Metcalfe: Lander• R.J. Kost: Powell• Ray Bieber: Powell• Teri Turner: Shoshoni• Alex Ayers: Gillette/Wright

• Alan Moore• Kim Ferguson• Jim Staab

http://www.k12.wy.us/SAA/BOE.asp

September 278:30 am Welcome

BOE Update/Review Process/Submission GuidelinesDistrict Work Time

Noon Lunch (Provided on-site)1:00 pm District Work Time3:30 pm Closure/Homework

September 268:30 am Welcome

Descriptive FeedbackDistrict Work time

11:30 Lunch (Provided on-site)12:30 pm District Work time2:30 pm November planning/closure

• To keep districts up-to-date on changes to the submissions guidelines for the April 2009 state peer review.

• To have collaboration time with multiple school districts across the State of Wyoming.

• To have uninterrupted work time in order to complete the Body of Evidence plan prior to the April 2009 submission date.

• To participate in a mock peer review prior to the April 2009 submission date.

Binders/Materials• October 1 (Updates Posted)

Websites

• http://boe.tie2.wikispaces.net/

• http://www.k12.wy.us/SAA/BOE.asp

Getting Started

• The philosophy at the heart of the Wyoming Body of Evidence system is to provide multiple measures to assess student mastery of the content standards; in this way, no single assessment can disqualify a student from graduation.

• History of BOE• Nation at Risk (1983)• Wyoming Responds• 1990 – continued local control• October 1998 – state standards in place• 2000-2003 BOE becomes statute in law• 2007 – revived

• An individual district may determine student mastery of the standards through a variety of means as decided by that district, for example, district assessments, state assessments, and successful completion of courses with passing grades.

• 9-12 component to make it successful you need to think about K-12 assessment system.

• General Structure

• Overview Section

• These two sections are NOT reviewed but they might help the reviewer’s (attitude) about your plan. (First impression)

Suggestions:

• Describe it; Show the evidence!

• Present in an easy, understandable manner!

• Not looking for quantity looking for quality.

• Not a rating scale: you either have it in the plan or you do not.

• Peer review is from your peer’s – think about what you would like to read.

• Although each district determines what it will include in its Body of Evidence, the evidence must be able to support determinations about student mastery in each of the core content areas:

• career/vocational education, • fine and performing arts, • foreign languages, • health, • language arts, • mathematics, • physical education, • science, and • social studies.

Take a minute at your table and discuss what core and non-core areas that you will be submitting at the April 2009 peer review.

Why did you select these areas?Do all teachers know the areas?

Beginning with the graduating class of 2006, a student may earn one of three possible endorsements on his or her transcript: advanced, comprehensive,

or general.

Where you are, where you are going, and how do you complete the task? Might be different for each content area.

Course-Based 44Course-Based & Common Assessment 45District-Based 46Multi-District 47Standardized Assessment 47Mixed Models 48

Which approach are you currently using? Explain to team.

If you haven’t selected an approach, this is where your team will begin.

• Alignment• Consistency• Fairness• Standard-Setting• Comparability

Five Design Criteria of BOE (Pages 94-99)

Work Time

September: Getting Started/Descriptive Feedback/Planning for November, February, April

November: Standard Setting (based on district feedback)

February: Mock peer review using protocol and descriptive feedback/work time

April?

At this point, think about the top three things you would like your

peers to review.

Day Two

Questions/Clarifications/Comments

As a team, determine three focus areas. List on handout. Partner with a district.

Comparable in size Explain list to partner district. Clarify questions. Review plan. 45 minutes

Share feedback. Clarify questions. Clarify comments.

Lunch 11:30 to12:30

Discuss next steps/needs

Planning

Have districts present their process – 20 minutes

Practice the process on page – 61-64 (with fictitious student work examples)

Item-based versus work-based

Have districts present their process – 20 minutes

Practice the process on page – 61-64 (with fictitious student work examples)

Item-based versus work-based

See you in November