Using Growth measures for Educator Evaluation

New York State Education Department Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation

August 2012

1

www.engageNY.org

By the End of This Presentation….  You should be able to: – Explain how growth ratings (HEDI) and scores will be obtained from educator overall MGPs and confidence ranges based on 2011-12 State-provided growth measures

2

www.engageNY.org

Evaluating Educator Effectiveness 2011-12 Growth 20% Locally Selected Measures 20% Other Measures 60%

3

• Student growth on state assessments (stateprovided) • Student learning objectives

• Student growth or achievement • Options selected through collective bargaining • Rubrics • Sources of evidence: observations, visits, surveys, etc.

www.engageNY.org

Key Points about NYS Growth Measures – We are measuring student growth and not achievement  Allow teachers to achieve high ratings regardless of incoming levels of achievement of their students

– We are measuring growth compared to similar students  Similar students: Up to three years of the same prior achievement, three student-level characteristics (economic disadvantage, SWD, and ELL status)

Every educator has a fair chance to demonstrate effectiveness on these measures regardless of the composition of his/her class or school.

4

www.engageNY.org

Review of Terms  SGP (student growth percentile): – the result of a statistical model that calculates each student’s change in achievement between two or more points in time on a State assessment or other comparable measure and compares each student’s performance to that of similarly achieving students

 Similar students: – students with the similar prior test scores,(up to three years), and ELL, SWD, and economic disadvantage status

 Unadjusted and adjusted MGP (mean growth percentile): – the average of the student growth percentiles attributed to a given educator – For evaluation purposes, the overall adjusted MGP is used. This is the MGP that includes all a teacher or principal’s students and takes into account student demographics.

5

www.engageNY.org

MGPs and Statistical Confidence MGP

Lower Limit

87

Upper Limit

Confidence Range • NYSED will provide a 95% confidence range, meaning we can be 95% confident that an educator’s “true” MGP lies within that range. Upper and lower limits of MGPs will also be provided. • An educator’s confidence range depends on a number of factors, including the number of student scores included in his or her MGP and the variability of student performance in the classroom. 6

www.engageNY.org

Growth Ratings and Score Ranges 2011-12 Growth Rating

Description

Growth Score Range (2011–12)

Highly Effective

Well above state average for similar students

18–20

Effective

Results meet state average for similar students

9–17

Developing

Below state average for similar students

3–8

Ineffective

Well below state average for similar students

0–2

The growth scores and ratings are based on an educator’s combined MGP.

7

www.engageNY.org

HEDI Classification Approach: Teachers and Principals  Highly Effective (Well Above Average) requires: – An educator’s MGP is greater than 1.5 standard deviations above the State mean. – For 2011-12 this means MGP’s greater than or equal to 69 for teachers.

 Effective (Average) requires: – An educator’s MGP is between 1 standard deviation below the State mean and 1.5 standard deviations above the State mean. – For 2011-12, MGPs of 42 through 68 for teachers.

 Developing (Below Average) requires: – An educator’s MGP is between 1 and 1.5 standard deviations below the State mean.

– For 2011-12, MGPs of 36 through 41 for teachers.

 Ineffective (Well Below Average) requires: – An educator’s MGP is more than 1.5 standard deviations below the State mean. – For 2011-12 this means MGPs less than or equal to 35 for teachers.

8

www.engageNY.org

From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Teachers

Rules on last slide result in these HEDI criteria for 2011-12 Mean Growth Percentile

Is your MGP ≥ 69?

Yes

Confidence Range

Is your Lower Limit > Mean of 52?

HEDI Rating

Yes

No

Is your MGP 42-68?

Yes

Any Confidence Range

Yes

Highly Effective: Results are well above state average for similar students Effective: Results equal state average for similar students

No

Is your MGP 36-41?

Yes

Is your Upper Limit < Mean of 52?

Yes

Developing: Results are below state average for similar students

Yes

Ineffective: Results are well below state average for similar students

No

Is your MGP ≤ 35?

9

Yes

Is your Upper Limit < 44?

www.engageNY.org

From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Principals

For principals the rules lead to these HEDI criteria for 2011-12 Mean Growth Percentile

Is your MGP ≥ 61?

Yes

Confidence Range

HEDI Rating

Is your Lower Limit > Mean of 51?

Highly Effective: Results are well above state average for similar students

Yes

No

Is your MGP 45-60?

Yes

Any Confidence Range

Yes

Effective: Results equal state average for similar students

No

Is your MGP 41.5-44?

Yes

Is your Upper Limit < Mean of 51?

Yes

Developing: Results are below state average for similar students

Yes

Ineffective: Results are well below state average for similar students

No

Is your MGP ≤ 41?

10

Yes

Is your Upper Limit < 46?

www.engageNY.org

Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings: (Another Way) (2011-12 cut scores) MGP 1

Well Below Average (35)

Below Average (41)

Well Above Average (69)

Average (52)

MGP MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP Upper limit CR for Ineffective (44)

11

www.engageNY.org

MGP

MGP 99

Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings: (2011-12 cut scores) MGP 1

Well Below Average (35)

Below Average (41)

Average (52)

Well Above Average (69)

MGP 99

MGP MGP

Ineffective Highly Effective

Upper limit CR for Ineffective (44)

12

www.engageNY.org

Illustrating Teacher Growth Ratings (2011-12 cut scores) Well Below Average (35)

MGP 1

Below Average (41)

Well Above Average (69)

Average (52)

MGP 99

MGP MGP

Ineffective

Highly Effective

MGP

Developing MGP

Effective

MGP

Effective MGP

Developing

13

Upper CI for Ineffective (44)

www.engageNY.org

MGP

Effective

NYS Growth Subcomponent Results for 2011-12: Teachers Rating & Points (2011–12 )

Highly Effective 18–20

2206

7%

25,578

77%

Developing 3–8

3341

10%

Ineffective 0–2

2004

6%

Effective 9–17

Total

14

Number of Percent of Teacher MGPs Teacher MGPs

33,129

www.engageNY.org

NYS results for 2011-12: Principals Rating & Points (2011–12 )

15

Number of Percent of Principal MGPs Principal MGPs

Highly Effective 18–20

223

6%

Effective 9–17

2821

79%

Developing 3–8

269

8%

Ineffective 0–2

243

7%

Total

3556

www.engageNY.org

Assignment of Points with HEDI Category

16

HEDI Points

Min MGP

Max N of MGP Teachers

HEDI Points

Min MGP

0

3

28

660

0

16

36.5

71

1

29

32

651

1

37

39

75

2

33

35

693

2

39.5

41

97

3

29

35

241

3

34.5

41

22

4

36

37

826

4

41.5

42

65

5

38

38

495

5

42.5

42.5

40

6

39

39

535

6

43

43

37

7

40

40

561

7

43.5

43.5

41

8

41

41

683

8

44

44

64

9

36

44

2661

9

41.5

46

270

10

45

46

2001

10

46.5

48

350

11

47

49

3376

11

48.5

49

209

12

50

51

2432

12

49.5

50.5

328

13

52

54

3648

13

51

52

313

14

55

56

2415

14

52.5

53.5

324

15

57

59

3144

15

54

55

316

16

60

62

2624

16

55.5

57

353

17

63

68

3277

17

57.5

63.5

358

18

69

70

662

18

61

61.5

65

19

71

73

666

19

62

63

70

20

74

96

878

20

63.5

74

88

Teachers

Principals

Point value of 3 includes educators with MGPs in the Ineffective category but CRs above 44 (for teachers) and above 46 (for principals)

Point value of 9 includes educators with MGPs in the Developing category but CRs above state average

Point value of 17 Includes educators with MGPs in the Highly Effective category but CRs below state average

www.engageNY.org

Max N of MGP Schools

17

www.engageNY.org