Connecticut’s New Accountability System:

Metrics and School Classification

ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL MEETINGAUGUST 20, 2012

NCLB REQUIREMENTS NOT WAIVED

• Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements

• The basic highly qualified teacher requirements have not been waived.

• English Language Learners

• Paraprofessional Requirements

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND WAIVER(APPROVED BY USDE ON MAY 29TH)

The waiver enables the CSDE and districts to:Replace annual yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB with

CT-designed annual performance targetsSchools will not be identified as “in need of

improvement” based on this year’s dataReplace NCLB sanctions for schools and districts with

more effective interventions

TIMELINE

• AYP• NCLB Sanctions

2010-11

• AYP• No NCLB Sanctions• Baseline data for new

performance targets (averaged with previous two years)

• New funding flexibilities

2011-12

• New performance targets

• School Classification

2012-13

FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY

NCLB indicators:

only capture performance of

students across single performance band

New waiver indicators: capture performance across

all bands and graduation rates

Future year indicators: will capture other

important elements of school performance

ELEMENTS OF SCHOOL PERFORMANCE TO CAPTURE IN FUTURE YEARS:

Cohort GrowthCollege and Career ReadinessCivicsArtsFitness/WellnessSchool Climate

WHY CONNECTICUT NEEDS A NEW SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTABILITY:

We should value improvement at all levels.

We should use metrics that give us a fuller picture of performance.

We should set meaningful goals for schools.

We should set the bar higher: the goal is ‘Goal’.

NCLB CT’s new indicatorsTarget is Proficient Target is – on average – at Goal

Get to 100% by 2014 Halfway to target by 2018Only math and reading count Math, reading, writing, and science

count

Only capture progress from Basic to Proficient

Count progress between all levels

School progress only measured by standardized test scores

School progress also measured by high school graduation rates (4-year and extended)

Accountable for subgroups of students, “n” size = 40

Still accountable for subgroups of students, “n” size = 20; majority of subgroups approach

MAJOR SHIFTS:

ADDITIONAL SHIFTS:

SUBGROUPS Black Hispanic Special Education English Language Learner Free/Reduced Price Lunch

SUBJECTS Mathematics Reading Writing* Science (5, 8, 10)

*Skills Checklist Communication

= Writing

Advanced

Goal

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic

Advanced

Goal

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic

NCLBConnecticut’s New

Indicators

NEW INDICATORS• Individual Performance Indicator (IPI)

• Subject-IPI

• The transformation of a valid achievement level in a particular subject

• Mean of subject-IPIs for a school (goes across grades)

• School Performance Indicator (SPI)• mean of the school’s IPI

• District Performance Indicator (DPI)• mean of the district’s IPI

• Connecticut Performance Indicator (CPI)

• A group size of 20 or more is required to calculate a valid indicator.

PERFORMANCE INDEX Index between 0 and 100

Counts performance in all tested grade levels

Captures performance across performance bands

Includes all tested subjects: reading, writing, math, and science

Incorporates all tested students, including students who take the MAS and the Skills Checklist

Provides subject-specific indices and overall index

Calculated for “all students” group and subgroups: ELL, SWD, Black, Hispanic, F/R lunch

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RESULTS RELEASED IN JULY AND THE PERFORMANCE METRICS?

RAW DATA (July)

Results separated by grade level and subject

All students who were tested in a school/district included

Only currently identified ELL and SWD included

MAS/ Skills Checklist reported separately

PERFORMANCE METRICS

Results aggregated across subjects and grade levels

Only students who were present in the school/district for 10 months included

ELL and SWD included for 2 years after they “exit”

MAS/ Skills checklist included in index

PERFORMANCE INDEX STUDENTS WHO TAKE CMT/CAPT

Level of Performance “Credit”

Goal, Advanced 1.0

Proficient 0.67

Basic 0.33

Below Basic 0.0

PERFORMANCE INDEXSTUDENTS WHO TAKE MAS OR SKILLS CHECKLIST

MAS* Skills Checklist* “credit”

Goal Independent 1.0

Proficient Proficient 0.50

Basic Basic 0.0

*3% cap remains in place at the district-level. Standard raised from Proficient to Goal.

Calculating District/School/Subgroup Performance Index

• Step 1: Calculate an Individual Performance Index (IPI) for each student.

Average of these values (x100) = Individual Performance Index (IPI): 67

Example: 5th graderReading – G:1.0Writing – P:.67Science – B:.33Math–P:.67Total 2.67Average of values .6675

• Step 2: Calculate the District/School/Subgroup Performance Index.

Average all students IPIs (in the relevant group) to get the Performance Index = 50

Example: ELL Subgroup5th grader IPI = 676th grader IPI = 337th grader IPI = 338th grade IPI = 67

Calculating Subject Performance Index

• 97 students take CMT17 score A: 17 students x 1.00 = 17 SPI points20 score G: 20 students x 1.00 = 20 SPI points30 score P: 30 students x 0.67 = 20 SPI points15 score B: 15 students x 0.33 = 5 SPI points15 score BB: 15 students x 0.00 = 0 SPI points

• 2 students take MAS1 scores G: 1 student x 1.00 = 1 SPI point1 scores B: 1 student x 0.00 = 0 SPI points

• 1 student takes Skills Checklist1 scores I: 1 student x 1.00 = 1 SPI point

Subject Performance

Index = 64

% at or above Proficient =

69%

Increasing % Proficiency by 9% requires moving 9 students who were not Proficient to Proficient.

Increasing the SPI by 3 points requires moving 9 students across any performance threshold (.33 for each student)

HOW CAN A SCHOOL INCREASE ITS SPI?For a school with 100 students….

AdvancedGoal

Proficient Basic

Below Basic

AdvancedGoal

ProficientBasic

Below Basic

1.0 0.33

0.33

0.33

GRADUATION METRICS FOR HIGH SCHOOLS

4-year cohort graduation rate Extended graduation rate

• Federally defined

• The percentage of incoming 9th graders who graduate from 12th grade within 4 years with a standard diploma

Counts students who stay enrolled in high school for longer than 4 years

Counts students who receive certificate of completion

Does not count students who dropped out or transferred to another school district but never enrolled or have an unknown status

CONNECTICUT STATE TARGETS: FOLLOWING 2018

Component Measures State Target

Student and Subgroup Achievement

School Performance Index 88

Achievement Gaps

School Performance Index Gaps <10

Graduation Rate

4-year grad rateExtended grad rate

94%96%

School A School B School C% G or A 82% 80% 65%

% P 0% 10% 35%% B 18% 5% 0%

% BB 0% 5% 0%SPI 88 88 88

Sample Schools with Subject Performance Index = 88

School D School E School F% G or A 45% 61% 0%

% P 11% 0% 90%% B 34% 9% 10%

% BB 10% 30% 0%SPI 64 64 64

Sample Schools with Subject Performance Index = 64

School Performance Index Performance Targets: Ambitious yet Achievable

23

Scho

ol P

erfo

rman

ce In

dex 88

Subgroup Performance Index Performance Targets: Ambitious yet Achievable

24

Subg

roup

Per

form

ance

Inde

x

88

4-year Cohort Graduation Rate Performance Targets: Ambitious yet Achievable

25

4-ye

ar g

radu

ation

rate

94%

Extended Graduation Rate Performance Targets: Ambitious yet Achievable

26

Exte

nded

gra

duati

on ra

te

96%

SCHOOL CLASSIFICATIONS• Excelling met all state targets

• Progressing meeting annual targets

• Transition not meeting annual targets

• Review

• Turnaround

Need the most support Eligible for the Commissioner’s Network District led intervention & redesign

DPI REPORT WITH TARGETS

MORE INFORMATION COMING SOON!

TEACHER AND LEADERSHIP EVALUATIONADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL – AUGUST 20, 2012

Dr. Christine Carver, Associate Superintendent

Mr. Stephen Foresi, Director of Human Capital Development

LEARNING TARGETSWhen we are finished, you will be able to…

• understand the relationship between:

• leadership evaluation,

• teacher evaluation, and

• student outcomes.

• describe the formal and embedded professional learning for leaders on effective instructional practices.

• understand Learning Walks;

• district expectations around Learning Walks; and

• the plan for informing teachers of the Learning Walks.

• Implement the changes in supervisory documentation for the 2012-2013 school year using Observation 360.

• implement the Learning Walks Rubric.

Teacher Evaluation

Leader Evaluation

Instructional Effectiveness

Student Learning Outcomes

45%

Teacher Practice 40%

Parent Feedback 10%

School-Wide Student Learning or Student Feedback

5%Instructional Leadership

Student Learning Outcomes

45%

Leadership Practices

40%

Teacher Effectiveness

5%

Stakeholder Feedback

10%

Exemplary 4

Proficient3

Developing 2

Below Standard

1

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

What will be the professional learning for evaluators?

What will be the work of the committee in terms of learning walks?

HOW WILL THE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING FOR EVALUATORS BE PROVIDED?

Administrative Council• Collective understanding

through application.

• Video

• Learning Target Rubrics

• Effective Teaching Rubrics developed by committee

Learning Walks • Collective understanding

through application.

• Paired classroom observations

• Learning Target Rubrics

• Effective Teaching Rubrics developed by committee

WHY ENGAGE IN PROFESSIONAL LEARNING FOR LEADERS?

1. Develop consistent definition and expectations for effective instruction.

2. Ensure consistency among evaluators when evaluating teachers.

3. Develop a system to monitor implementation of the high yield instructional strategy (DIP – Learning Targets).

4. Mandated in an Act Concerning Educational Reform when developing an implementing a new teacher and leader evaluation system.

HOW IS THIS LINKED TO MY EVALUATION?

• Student Outcomes (SPI and DPI)

• Are my students making targeted growth over time?

• Teacher Effectiveness

• What percentage of my teachers are a “3” or higher?

• Leadership practices

• Are my actions reflecting the standards as defined by the Connecticut leadership Standards (Instructional Leadership)?

WHEN WILL THE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING BE PROVIDED?

Instructional Focus

Where? Who ? Date/Times

Learning Targets Newington High School

Group 1 - Christine Carver (Facilitator ), Deb St. Jean, Jim Wenker, Joanne Vasil, Dena Tompkins, Mike Gaydos, Sabrina Lavieri, and Dr. Collins

October 3, 20128:00 to 11:00

Group 2 - Stephen Foresi (Facilitator), Jamie Lussier, Joan Mastrocola, Sheila Houlihan, Terra Piela and Enzo Zocco and Wendy Crouse

Learning Targets Ruth Chaffee Stephen Foresi (Facilitator), Jeremy Visone, Rick DeBellis,Pamela Muraca and Dr. Collins

November 5, 2012

John Paterson Christine Carver (Facilitator), Deb Grainsky, Jen Michno, Wendy Crouse and Sabrina Lavieri

Learning Targets Elizabeth Green

Stephen Foresi (Facilitator), Jen Michno November 8, 2012

Anna Reynolds Christine Carver (Facilitator), Jeremy Visone

Learning Targets John Wallace Stephen Foresi (Facilitator), Kristen Freeman, Luz Antonio, Dorothy Franco-Reed and Sabrina Lavieri

December 3, 2012

Martin Kellogg Christine Carver (Facilitator), Dave Milardo, Jason Lambert., Pamela Muraca, Wendy Crouse and Dr. Collins

COMMITTEE WORK ON EVALUATION

WHAT WILL THE COMMITTEE DO? Purpose Teacher Evaluation

PlanOrientation Meeting June 19, 2012 – 3:00 – 4:00

Initial Workshop August 24, 2012 – 8:00 – 11:00Committee Meeting September 20, 2012

Learning Walks October 10, 2012Committee Meeting October 25, 2012

Learning Walks November 26, 2012Committee Meeting November 29, 2012

Learning Walks December 10, 2012Committee Meeting December 20, 2012

Learning Walks January 24, 2013Committee Meeting January 28, 2013

Learning Walks February 11, 2013Committee Meeting February 21, 2013Committee Meeting March 28, 2013

Reserved April 25, 2013Reserved April 29, 2013Reserved May 23, 2013

LEARNING TARGET OUTCOMES AND EXPECTATIONS

Helping Students Aim for Understanding… in Every Lesson!

WHEN ARE LEARNING TARGETS EXPECTED TO BE IMPLEMENTED?• There are two parts to the training:

• Part I – Know and Understand (Action Research)

• Part II – Do (Application)

• Each training is approximately 2 hours

• NHS – August 31st Training – Parts I and II

• JW – August 31st Training – Part I only

• MK – By the end of September – Parts I and II through COP

• Elementary Schools – By the end of October – Parts I and II

HOW WILL WE MONITOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEARNING TARGETS?

• By focusing our Learning Walks on LEARNING TARGETS using a specific Rubric in Observation 360

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE LEARNING TARGETS RUBRIC?

• Did you see evidence that the teacher has a learning target for this specific lesson?

• What did you see the students do, say, write, or make during today’s lesson? Did you find evidence that the lesson included a strong performance of understanding?

• In addition to looking for a strong performance of understanding, did you see evidence that the teacher shared the learning target for the lesson with the students in any of the following additional ways?

• Did you see evidence that the teacher shared student “look-fors,” or criteria for success, with students?

• Did you observe the teacher feeding students’ learning forward during today’s lesson?

OBSERVATION 360

Current Plan and Expectations

Data Collection: Learning Targets

HOW WILL TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR THE 2012-2013 SCHOOL YEAR?

• Observation 360

• Current Evaluation Process

• Expectation for Teachers

• Expectation for Evaluators

• Learning Targets Rubric

• Expectation for Teachers

• Expectation for Evaluators

WHAT DO WE NEED TO KNOW?PD 360/Observation 360 & Current Evaluation Process

• Expectation for Teachers:

• Complete Eval. forms using PD 360

• Expectation for Evaluators –

• Complete Eval. forms using PD 360

• Use to collect data on Learning Walks ( Rubric)

• Conduct a minimum of 3 Learning Walks per Supervisee

Learning Walks & Learning Targets Rubric

• Expectation for Teachers

• 80% implementation district-wide

• Get feedback from supervisor re: implementation

• Expectation for Evaluators

• Use to conduct Learning Walks

• Provide supportive immediate feedback to supervisee (feeding learning forward)

WHAT DO WE NEED TO KNOW?• The implementation of Learning Targets is an Instructional Strategy that aligns to:

• Our Shared Vision of Effective Teaching

• Research-based strategies that improve student achievement

• Our District Improvement Plan

• We are going to implement Learning Targets district-wide this school year

• Training will take place as follows…. (use the schedule I already shared)

• Learning Walks will take place this school year

• Learning Walks will support a number of important initiatives, including:

• Implementing identified District Improvement Plan action steps

• Supporting our transition to a revised Teacher and Administrator Evaluation Plan

• Calibrating understanding to ensure consistent supervisory practices

• To monitor and support the implementation of learning targets (and other district and school initiatives)

QUESTIONS