Wyoming Accountability in Education Act - 1/16/14 Presentation

Overview of Current Status(Still Under Construction)

Wyoming Accountability in

Education ActWAEA

Phase I

School Performance Levels

Does not Meet

Partially Meets

Meets

Exceeds

Phase ISchool Performance Levels

Performance Indicators

Achieve-ment

Equity

Growth Achieve-ment

Equity

College & Career Ready

K-8 Schools 9-12 Schools

Exceeding

Meeting

Not Meeting

Number of students who are proficient or advanced on PAWS, PAWS-ALT, and ACT.• Reading (3-8, 11)• Math (3-8, 11)• Writing (3, 5, 7, 11)• Science (4, 8, 11)

Achievement

Achievement

• ACT subject area tests– Reading– Mathematics– Science– Combined English/Writing (added

in 2014)

• Score in 2014 will be an average student standardized score

High School Achievement2014

Achievement

• Select a baseline year (i.e., 2013)• Compute statewide mean score and

standard deviation• ACT math test

Mean = 19.6SD = 4.5

• Compute student standardized scores• (Student scaled score – statewide mean)

Statewide standard deviation

Computing Standardized Scores

Achievement

• The mean student standardized score for all students on all subject area tests– This mean is multiplied by 100 and

rounded to a whole number

• Most schools will have scores between -100 and +100

High School Achievement Determination

Achievement

Growth refers to a change in the achievement of students as they progress from year to year.

• Student’s growth compared to students with similar scores in previous years (SGP)

• Must have two consecutive years of scores

• Math and reading calculated separately

• Growth is independent of achievement level

Growth

Growth

Minimize achievement gaps and insure that students are on target for becoming proficient.

• Consolidated Subgroup

• Adequate Growth Percentiles (AGP)

Equity

Equity

• Schools with growth data• % of students in the consolidated

subgroup who meet or exceed their AGP score.

• Schools without growth data • the achievement gap between the

consolidated group and the statewide performance of all students plus the improvement in that gap from the prior year to the current year.

Equity

Equity

• Current grade 11 students with low grade 10 PLAN scores– below 17 on the math test– below 16 on the reading test

• Schools were notified by WDE November 5th

High School Consolidated Subgroup 2014

Equity

• Mean ACT standardized score for students in the consolidated subgroup – This mean is multiplied by 100 and

rounded to a whole number

• An equity score of -58 indicates:– Consolidated group mean score was 58%

of a standard deviation below the baseline year state mean score for all students in reading and math

• High school results highly correlated with equity results grade 3-8 schools

High School Equity2014

Equity

Readiness

College & Career

Readiness

College and Career Readiness is composed of four sub-indicators.

• ACT suite of tests

• % of students earning enough grade nine credits

• Graduation Rate

• Hathaway Scholarship Eligibility

Sub-Indicator: ACT Index

College & Career

Readiness

  Composite Score Ranges  

Wyoming ACT Readiness Levels

ACT Explore Grade 9

ACT Plan Grade 10

ACT Test Grade 11

Index Points*

Level 4 21-25 22-32 25-36 100

Level 3 18-20 19-21 21-24 80

Level 2 15-17 16-18 17-20 50

Level 1 1-14 1-15 1-16 20

Readiness Sub-Indicator:Graduation

College & Career

Readiness

Criteria Numbers Student Result Points*

5 Diploma Earned in Four Years or Less 100

4 Diploma Earned in More than Four Years 100

3 Alternate Standards Certificate per IEP**

*

2 Continued Enrollment*** 501 Noncompleters 0

Readiness Sub-Indicator: 9th Grade Courses

College & Career

Readiness • % of students who earned ¼ of the credits required to earn a diploma

• Indicator in schools which award diplomas

• Credits can be earned in the summer

Readiness Sub-Indicator:Hathaway Scholarship

College & Career

Readiness

Student Eligibility Level Points*

Level 5: Honors 100

Level 4: Performance 90

Level 3: Opportunity 80

Level 2: Provisional 70

Level 1: Not Eligible 0

Combining Sub-indicator Scores

College & Career

Readiness

 Subindicator

Hypothetical Score for a

School

Example Subindicator

Weight

(School Score * Weight)

ACT Suite Index 55 40 22

Grade 9 Percent On Track

72 ? 0

Graduation Rate Index 67 60 40.2

Hathaway Eligibility Index

58 ? 0

School Readiness Score (Sum of Subindicator Weighted Scores) =

62.2

Final School Performance Determination

    Achievement Below

Achievement Meeting

Achievement Exceeding

Equity Below Growth Below NM PM PM

Growth Meeting PM M M

Growth Exceeding PM M M

Equity Meeting Growth Below PM M M

Growth Meeting PM M M

Growth Exceeding PM M E

Equity Exceeding Growth Below PM M M

Growth Meeting PM M E

Growth Exceeding M M E

Final School Performance Determination

Schools With Grades 3-8

Note. Not classified schools excluded in this view.

17.1%

25.7%

46.2%

11.3%14.1%

28.0%

47.9%

10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Not Meeting Partially Meeting Meeting Exceeding

Percent of Wyoming Schools and Students in Each School Performance Level during the 2012-13 School Accountability Pilot.

% of Schools % of Students

Final Results Schools Grades 3-8

Note. Not classified schools excluded in this view.

12.5%

26.4%

48.7%

12.5%14.5%

26.5%

48.8%

10.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Not Meeting Partially Meeting Meeting Exceeding

For Grade 3-8 Wyoming Schools, the Percent of Schools and Students in Each School Performance Level during the 2012-13 School Accountability Pilot.

% of Schools % of Students

Final Results High Schools

Then What …..

• WAEA Reporting Requirements• Exceeding = Communication Plan• Meeting = Improvement Plan + WDE

Rep• Partially = Improvement Plan + WDE

Rep• Not Meeting = Improvement Plan + WDE Rep

• Multi-tiered State System of Support

• WDE developing

Phase II

Teacher and Leader Evaluations

Ineffective

Needs Improvement

Effective

Highly Effective

Teacher and Leader Performance Levels

Effective Teaching

Content Knowledge

Professional Responsibility

Instructional Practice

Learner and Learning

Student Performance

• Learner and Learning

• Content Knowledge

• Instructional Practice

• Professional Responsibility

Professional Practice Domains:

• Observations• Pre-post observation conferences• Planning documents• Evidence of reading relevant literature• Self-reflection• Artifact collection• Programs of study• Unit/lesson plans• Student work samples• Student assessments • Professional goals• Examples of leadership involvement• Student surveys

Professional Practice Sources of Data

• Student Learning Objectives– All grades and content areas

• Student Growth Percentiles– Available for reading and math in grades 4-8

And...Student Performance

• Coherence with school accountability model requires a

systematic or logical connection or consistency.

• Shared attribution is the sharing of student test results

across a

group of educators, often all the educators

within a school.

• Results classified as high, typical, low

Student Performance: Student Growth Percentiles

Content and grade/course-specific measurable learning objectives that can be used to document student learning over a defined period of time

• involve teachers

• incentivize good teaching practices

Student Performance: Student Learning Objectives

Teacher Evaluation Cycle

Self assessment and goal setting

Initial meeting with supervisor to review and potential revise goals

Initial data collection (observations, surveys, interviews, artifacts)

Yearly review of data and progress on goals , practice measures, and student learning

Continued data collection

Summative evaluation at the end of Year 3

• PLD’s defined and used statewide

• Descriptors link to final performance level determinations

Teacher Performance Level Descriptors

Professional Practice Rating

4 Automatic Review Highly Effective Highly Effective

3 Needs Improvement Effective Effective

2 Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement

1 Ineffective Ineffective Automatic Review

  1 2 3

Student Performance Rating

Final Determinations Teachers

1. Educators rated ineffective or needs improvement in one year must be placed on an improvement plan.

2. An experienced teacher with two consecutive years of ineffective ratings will lose continuing contract status.

3. After receiving a second consecutive needs improvement rating, the educator will be considered as having received a first year ineffective rating.

4. An educator rated as highly effective for two consecutive years should received recognition.

Consequences

Effective Leading

Focus on Student Achievement

Instructionand

Assessment Leadership

Learning Organization

Vision, Mission, Culture

Management and Safety

Ethics and Professionalism

Communicate and

Engagement

• School accountability system results

• Observations by supervisor and peers

• Results of the teacher evaluations

• Survey or interviews of teachers, parents, community, students and classified staff.

• Analysis of evidence from key artifacts

• District accreditation results

Sources of Data

Leader Evaluation Cycle

Self assessment and goal setting

Initial meeting with supervisor to review and potential revise goals

Data collection (observations, surveys, interviews, artifacts)

Formative review of data and progress on goals

Continued data collection

Formative review of data

Continued data collection

Summative evaluation

• PLD’s defined and used statewide

• Descriptors link to final performance level determinations

Leader Performance Level Descriptors

Final Determinations Leaders

“Professional

Practice” Rating”

4

Review Effective Highly Effective

Highly Effective

3

Needs Improvement

Effective Effective Effective

2

Needs Improvement

Needs Improvement

Needs Improvement

Effective

1

Ineffective Ineffective Needs Improvement

Review

  1 2 3 4

“Student Performance” Rating

• 2013 Interim: Designing State Model Systems

• 2013-2014: Required training and professional learning, voluntary pilot for select districts

• 2014-2015: Phased-in implementation pilot

• 2015-2016: Full pilot, perhaps with phased-in implementation; Leader fully implemented

• 2016-2017 Full implementation of teacher

Implementation TimelineTeacher and Leader

– Self-assessment

– Collaboratively set goals

– Plan for achieving the goals

– Artifacts

– Self reflection

– Mentors/Induction Systems

Loose = District Decisions

– Required #of observations

– Use of Surveys

– Timeline

– Aligning Current Systems

– Peer observing teams

– Shared attribution

– Differentiating for educators

– Final determinations

Loose = District Decisions

– PLD’s

– Four levels

– Focus on student achievement every year

– Final determinations – sort of

– Data to use for achievement

– Standards

– Consequences for teachers

Tight = Consistent Statewide

• State responsibilities

• District responsibilities

• Influencing change

Final Thoughts