Overview of School and Educator Effectiveness

1. An Overview ofSchool and Educator EffectivenessWASSA ConferenceOctober 12, 2012Michael J. Thompson, PhDDeputy State SuperintendentWisconsin Department of Public Instruction

2. Standards & Instruction • What and how should kids learn? Assessments and Data Systems • How do we know if they learned it? School and Educator Effectiveness • How do we ensure that students have highly effective teachers and schools? School Finance Reform • How should we pay for schools?

3. Standards and Instruction What and how should kids learn? • Implement internationally benchmarked academic standards • Expand systems that promote early interventions in reading and mathematics. • Use digital learning to change and enhance instruction; and • Expand high school programs for dual enrollment earning college credit and specific career skills.

4. Assessments and Data Systems How do we know if they learned it? • Change state assessment proficiency levels, to reflect the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); • Implement an online, adaptive next generation assessmentsystem. • Launch statewide student information and data systems that support districts, streamline operations, and provide accurate and useable information.

5. School and Educator Effectiveness How do we ensure kids have highly effective teachers and schools? • Replace broken No Child Left Behind requirements with a new state accountability and support system; • Replicate best practices from high-performing schools and provide support to improve the lowest-performing schools; • Advance a fair and robust educator evaluation system.

6. School Finance Reform How should we pay for schools? • Guarantee a minimum amount of state aid for every student;  • Incorporate a poverty factor into the formula, accounting for families’ ability  to pay—not just property value;  • Establish sustainability in state funding, while strengthening rural, declining enrollment, and negatively aided districts; and • Redirect the school levy tax credit directly into school aids.

7. New accountability system begins & AYP ends (ESEA waiver) New proficiency benchmarks for WKCE reading & mathematics established Educator Effectiveness system design continues; Act 166 passed SMARTER Balanced assessment field testing Educator Effectiveness statewide system pilot ASSETS for ELL assessment in use All districts on SSIS New school report cards first issued (2011-12 accountability reports) New kindergarten literacy screeneradministered statewide DPI provides curricular resources for Common Core State Standards implementation First districts using State Student Information System (SSIS) Developmental pilot of Educator Effectiveness system Higher graduation requirements (targeted –needs legislation) Common Core State Standards fully incorporated into school/district curricula Smarter Balanced replaces WKCE & WAA-SwD in mathematics and English/Language Arts, including reading and writing Educator Effectiveness system implemented statewide

8. New school report cards first issued (2011-12 accountability reports) New kindergarten literacy screeneradministered statewide DPI provides curricular resources for Common Core State Standards implementation First districts using State Student Information System (SSIS) Developmental pilot of Educator Effectiveness system

9. Wisconsin’s School Report Cards October 2012

10. Agenda 2017 Standards & Instruction • What and how should kids learn? Assessments and Data Systems • How do we know if they learned it? School and Educator Effectiveness • How do we ensure that students have highly effective teachers and schools? School Finance Reform • How should we pay for schools?

12. Accountability Index • A comprehensive accountability index has replaced the AYP pass-fail system. AYP reports are gone; accountability reporting will now be done with School Report Cards (2011-12). • The index is a composite of sub-scales that measure performance across four priority areas : • Student Achievement • Student Growth • Closing Gaps • On-track to Graduation/Postsecondary Readiness • Student Engagement indicators, if missed, result in 5 point deduction • Test Participation Rate • Absenteeism Rate • Dropout Rate • The index score is on a 0–100 scale. Sub-scale scores as well as the index score will be reported to enhance transparency and differentiation.

13. Accountability Ratings • The index score will place schools into one of five rating levels: • Significantly Exceeds Expectations • Exceeds Expectations • Meets Expectations • Meets Few Expectations • Fails to Meet Expectations • These ratings serve as the new accountability determinations and determine level of support.

14. School Report Cards • School Report Cards provide each school’s overall score, priority area scores, and student engagement indicator performance. They also include WSAS performance over the last five years. • School Report Card Detail packets provide more information related to the accountability calculations as well as additional data to inform local conversations and school improvement efforts. • An Interpretive Guide is meant to provide information about the Report Cards. • A Technical Guide will help users interested in the specific details of index calculations.

15. State and Federal Accountability • The report cards: • Replace AYP reports • Serve as the primary reporting tool for the state accountability system • Will be issued annually • Are in addition to Title I identifications (Priority and Focus), which are federally required cohorts (every four years)

16. Summary Points • The report cards reflect a better, more comprehensive way of measuring schools’ effectiveness in helping students graduate ready for college and career. • The accountability index is based on multiple factors: student achievement on WSAS and the ACT, growth in student achievement, progress in closing achievement gaps, student progress toward postsecondary readiness, graduation rates, and attendance. • The report cards provide valuable guidance on how our schools are doing and where to improve. In combination with other school data, they can help schools plan and evaluate their improvement efforts. • The DPI will explore including more measures of college- and career-readiness in the index calculations in the future.

17. Release Schedule – Preliminary Report Cards • Secure Release – week of September 24 • PDFs in SAFE (educators only) • Preliminary and secure (embargoed) • Updated Secure Release – week of October 8 • PDFs in SAFE (educators only) • Preliminary and secure (embargoed) • Preliminary Public Release – week of October 22 • PDFs posted to DPI webpage organized by district • Preliminary but public (with redaction) • Searchable state file with determinations

18. Timeline New accountability system begins & AYP ends (ESEA waiver) New WKCE benchmarks established for reading, math Title I Priority & Focus schools identified Educator Effectiveness system design continues; Act 166 passed Smarter Balanced assessment field testing Educator Effectiveness statewide pilot ASSETS for ELLs assessment in use New school report cards first issued (2011-12 accountability reports) New system of support for Title I Priority & Focus schools begins New kindergarten literacy screeneradministered statewide DPI provides curricular resources for Common Core State Standards implementation First districts begin pilot of Educator Effectiveness system First graduating class with higher graduation requirements (targeted –needs legislation) Common Core State Standards fully incorporated into school/district curricula Smarter Balanced & Dynamic Learning Maps replace WKCE & WAA-SwD in math, English Language Arts (incl. reading & writing) Educator Effectiveness system implemented

19. For more information, please visit:http://www.dpi.wi.gov/oea/acct/accountability.html Emaileseawaiver@dpi.wi.gov

20. Context of theEducator Effectiveness Work • State Superintendent’s Educator Effectiveness Design Team – Diverse Membership, National and State Support and Expertise • State legislation (Act 166) • Endorses broad parameters of EE Framework • Districts must implement evaluation systems consistent with legislation by 2014-2015 • Federal push: (July 2012) ESEA Waiver approval

21. Formation and Charge of a Design Team • Design Team formed in December 2010 • Charged to develop: • definitions of key guiding principles of a high-quality educator effectiveness program, • model performance-based evaluation systems for teachers and principals, • a regulatory framework for implementation that includes how student achievement data will be used in context, and • recommendations for methods to support improvement and incentives for performance.

22. Guiding Principles of the System An educator evaluation system must deliver information that: • Guides effective educational practice that is aligned with student learning and development • Documents evidence of effective educator practice • Documents evidence of student learning • Informs appropriate professional development • Informs educator preparation programs • Supports a full range of human resource decisions • Is credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and uniform across districts

23. A System of Seamless Transitions

24. Effective Educators Educators • An effective teacher consistently uses educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways. • An effective principal shapes school strategy and educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.

25. System Weights Educator Practice Student Growth

26. Standards for Educator Practice Teacher Practice InTASC Teaching Standards (2011) Framework for Teacher Evaluation Charlotte Danielson’s Domains & Components Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Domain 3: Instruction Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Principal Practice 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards Framework for Principal Evaluation Subordinate functions of the ISLLC standards

27. Educator Effectiveness Measures Practice measures State Assessment (value-added model) District Assessment Student Learning Objectives School-wide Reading (Elementary-Middle) Graduation (High School) District Choice

28. Multiple Performance Categories Developing: does not meet expectations and requires additional support and directed action Effective: areas of strength and improvement addressed through professional development Exemplary: expand expertise through professional development and use expertise in leadership The initial recommendation of the Design Team included three performance categories. The Coordinating Committee met on July 26, 2012, and determined that five rating categories would be part of the Developmental Pilot as opposed to three.

29. Educator EffectivenessSystem Matrix Student Outcomes Models of Practice • Asterisks indicate a mismatch between educator’s practice performance and student outcomes and requires a focused review to determine why the mismatch is occurring and what, if anything, needs to be corrected.

30. Educator Effectiveness Timeline

31. Teaching is complex… • The Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System acknowledges this: • Intentional, thoughtful in its design. • Credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and uniform across districts.

32. Staying Informed and Involved Visit the DPI Website: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/edueff.html The Framework, presentations, FAQs, and draft process manuals can be found posted on the website

33. Staying Informed and Involved DPI Organization