Dr. Deborah A. Brady

Ribas Associates, Inc.

Please create a name tag or a “name tent” with your first name and school or department.

Read the Table of Contents on page 1 Respond to the DO Now on page 2 of your handout.

*The materials are on line

if you want to follow along

and add notes at

http://tinyurl.com/l7287z9

PLANNING

By the end of this session, participants will:

1.Understand the timeline, expectations, and implications of District Determined Measures for all Marshfield educators.

2.Leave with a year-long plan for developing your department’s, school’s, team’s DDMs for this year’s pilot and next year’s full implementation.

3.Have the tools and resources and will have begun the process of developing and implementing at least one DDM.

SY 2014 SY 2015 SY 2016

ORIGINAL • Collect Data (year 1) • Collect Data• Issue Student

Impact Ratings (Year 2)

• Collect Data Issue Student Impact Ratings (Year 3 and on)

APRIL Revision

• Pilot 5 DDMs• Research others• Due in February—A

District Plan for assessing all teachers

• Collect Data for all teachers (year 1)

• Collect Data Issue Student Impact Ratings (year 2)

July 19 Revision

• Pilot 5 DDMs • December—

Implementation Extension Request Form

• Due in June—Final Plan for assessing all teachers with at least 2 DDMs

• Possible one-year extensions of implementation of specific grade/course/subject DDMs as long as based on Final Plan and

• Data Collection continues

• Collect Data for all teachers

• Issue Student Impact Ratings for all except waived grades/courses/subjects; this is their first year

DESE is still rolling out the evaluation process and

District Determined Measures

4

1

3

2

Sample DDMs in the five required pilot areas (last Friday).

Technical Assistance and Networking sessions on September 19th across the state

Technical Guide B (in this PowerPoint) addresses the practical application of assessment concepts to piloting potential DDMs and measuring student growth.

Model collective bargaining language will be available An ongoing Assessment Literacy webinar series continues

Guidance on constructing local growth scores and growth models will be released

Guidance on determining Student Impact Rating will be released.

(A work in progress with changes along the way)

Additional Model Curriculum Units, which include curriculum-embedded performance assessments CEPAs

Guidance on the use of CEPAs as part of a DDM-strategy.

Professional development for evaluators on how to focus on shifts embedded in the new ELA and math Curriculum Frameworks during classroom observations.

Professional development for evaluators on how to administer and score DDMs and use them to determine high, moderate or low growth, focused on the five required DDM pilot areas.

A Curriculum Summit in November

Take advantage of a no-stakes pilot year to try out new measures and introduce educators to this new dimension of the evaluation framework.

Districts are strongly encouraged to expand their pilots beyond the five required pilot areas.

Fold assessment literacy into the district's professional development plan to stimulate dialogue among educators about the comparative benefits of different potential DDMs the district could pilot.

Consider how contributing to the development or piloting of potential DDMs can be folded into educators' professional practice goals.

From the Commissioner:

“Finally, let common sense prevail when considering the scope of your pilots.

“I recommend that to the extent practicable, districts pilot each potential DDM in at least one

class in each school in the district where the appropriate grade/subject or course is taught.

“There is likely to be considerable educator interest in piloting potential DDMs in a no-

stakes environment before year 1 data collection commences, so bear that in mind

when determining scope.”

Pilot Pilot Year SY2014

PILOT YEAR

SEPTEMBER provide DESE a tentative plan for:Early grade literacy (K-3)Early grade math (K-3)Middle grade math (5-8)High school “writing to text” (PARCC multiple texts)PLUS one more non-tested course, for example:

Fine Arts Music PE/Health Technology Media/Library Other non-MCAS growth courses including grade 10 Math and ELA, Science

DECEMBER—Implementation Extension Request Form for specific courses in the JUNE PLAN

BY JUNE PLAN for all other DDMs must be ready for implementation in year 2 SY2015 At least one “local” (non-MCAS) and two measures per educator

2014

The scores will not

count for those who

pilot DDMs in 2014.

SY 2015All professional personnel will be assessed with 2 DDMs, at least one of which will be locally determined and one will be MCAS growth scores, when available: All teachers Guidance Principals, Assistant Principals Speech Therapists School Psychologists NursesEXCEPT those waivered by DESE based on a case-by-case decision process.

The scores will count as the first half of the “impact score” with

the waivered courses as the only exception

SY2016

“Impact Ratings” will be given to all licensed educational personnel and sent to DESE

Two measures for each educator At least one locally determined

measure for everyone Some educators will have two locally

determined measures The locally determined measure can

be a standardized test such as the DRA, MAP, Galileo, etc.

The MCAS can be only one measure The average of two years’ of scores And of a two year trend of those two

scores

“Impact Ratings”

Are based upon two years’

growth scores for two different assessments, at least one non-

MCAS score that is locally

determined.

Every educator earns two ratings

ExemplaryProficient

Needs ImprovementUnsatisfactory

HighModerate

Low

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

14

SummativePerformance

Rating

Impact Ratingon

StudentPerformance

*Most districts will not begin issuing Impact Ratings before the 2015-16 school year.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

15Impact

Ratingon

StudentPerformance

MCAS can serve as one score for (ELA, Math, Science)One or two locally developed assessments; some educators may have threeDESE Exemplars for the required piloted areas will be available in August 2013The MA Model Units Rubrics can be used

Galileo BERS-2 (Behavioral Rating Scales)

DRA (Reading) Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark

DIBELS (Fluency) ??? MCAS-Alt MAP AP

On Demand (timed and standardized)

Mid-Year and End-of-Year exams

Projects Portfolios Capstone Courses Unit tests Other

Formats can include:Multiple choiceConstructed responsePerformance (oral, written, acted out)

Use School-wide Growth Measures Use MCAS growth measures and extend them to all educators in a school

Use “indirect measures” such as dropout rates, attendance, etc., as measures

Use Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) Team-based SLOs Or create measures. A pre- and post- test are generally required to measure growth except with normed assessments

4503699

244/ 25 SGP

230/ 35 SGP

225/ 92 SGP

GROWTH SCORES for Educators Will Need to Be Tabulated

for All Locally Developed AssessmentsMCAS SGP

Is the measure aligned to content?

Is the measure informative?

20

Is the measure aligned to content? Does it assess what is most important for students to learn and be able to do?

Does it assess what the educators intend to teach?

21

Is the measure informative? Do the results of the measure inform educators about curriculum, instruction, and practice?

Does it provide valuable information to educators about their students?

Does it provide valuable information to schools and districts about their educators?

22

1. Measure growth

2. Employ a common administration procedure 

3. Use a common scoring process

4. Translate these assessments to an Impact Rating

5. Assure comparability of assessments (rigor, validity).

23

Comparable within a grade, subject, or course across schools within a district Identical measures are recommended

Comparable across grade or subject level district-wide Impact Ratings should have a consistent meaning across educators; therefore, DDMs should not have significantly different levels of rigor

24

Pre-Test/Post TestRepeated MeasuresHolistic EvaluationPost-Test Only

26

Description: The same or similar assessments administered at the beginning and at the end of the course or year

Example: Grade 10 ELA writing assessment aligned to College and Career Readiness Standards at beginning and end of year

Measuring Growth: Difference between pre- and post-test.

Considerations: Do all students have an equal chance of demonstrating growth?

27

Description: Multiple assessments given throughout the year.

Example: running records, attendance, mile run

Measuring Growth:GraphicallyRanging from the sophisticated to simple

Considerations:Less pressure on each administration.Authentic Tasks

28

29Date of Administration

# of errors

Description: Assess growth across student work collected throughout the year.

Example: Tennessee Arts Growth Measure System

Measuring Growth: Growth Rubric (see example)

Considerations: Option for multifaceted performance assessments

Rating can be challenging & time consuming

30

31

1 2 3 4

Details

No improvement in the level of detail.

One is true

* No new details across versions

* New details are added, but not included in future versions.

* A few new details are added that are not relevant, accurate or meaningful

Modest improvement in the level of detail

One is true

* There are a few details included across all versions

* There are many added details are included, but they are not included consistently, or none are improved or elaborated upon.

* There are many added details, but several are not relevant, accurate or meaningful

Considerable Improvement in the level of detail

All are true

* There are many examples of added details across all versions,

* At least one example of a detail that is improved or elaborated in future versions

*Details are consistently included in future versions

*The added details reflect relevant and meaningful additions

Outstanding Improvement in the level of detail

All are true

* On average there are multiple details added across every version

* There are multiple examples of details that build and elaborate on previous versions

* The added details reflect the most relevant and meaningful additions

Example taken from Austin, a first grader from Anser Charter School in Boise, Idaho.  Used with permission from Expeditionary Learning. Learn more about this and other examples at http://elschools.org/student-work/butterfly-drafts

Description: A single assessment or data that is paired with other information

Example: AP exam

Measuring Growth, where possible: Use a baseline Assume equal beginning

Considerations: May be only option for some indirect measures What is the quality of the baseline information?

32

Portfolios Measuring achievement v. growth

Unit Assessments Looking at growth across a series

Capstone Projects May be a very strong measure of achievement

33

Piloting District Determined Measures

Piloting:TestAnalyzeAdjustRepeat

Being strategic and deliberate:

CollaborationIterationInformation

35

1. Prepare to pilot Build your team Identify content to assess Identify the measure

Aligned to content Informative

Decide how to administer & score

2. Test Administer Score

3. Analyze

4. Adjust36

Is the measure fair to special education students?

Are the variations of scores in scores due to rater?

Is growth equal across the scale?

37

Each DDM should have:

1. Directions for administering2. Student directions3. Instrument (the assessment)4. Scoring method5. Scoring directions

38

Existing ESE Staff Part VII of the Model System Technical Guide A Assessment Quality Checklist and Tracking Tool Assessment Literacy Webinar Series Materials from Technical Assistance sessions Commissioner's Memorandum Technical Guide B

What’s Coming Exemplar DDMs (August 30th) Other Supporting Materials

39

See page 5-6 of Handout for DESE recommendations

Table or Partner Talk

Pages 5-6 in Handout

Some options: Writing to text 9-12? K-12? (NEASC) Research K-12? Specialist Coordination Opportunities Support for Art, Music, PE, Health Math—one focus K-12? (fractions, e.g.)Are there present assessments that might be modified slightly

Consider all of the options, concerns, initiatives, possibilities as you look at what the next step for your school and district should look like.

Be ready to share this very basic “first think” on DDMs.

After this, you will be given tools that will support your assessments of tasks and curricula’s quality, rigor, and alignment.

Page 2 (The DO Now)

Process with a partner. Why might Elmore’s idea be germane to your planning? What can educators learn from DDMs?

http://edworkspartners.org/expect-success/2012/09/21st-century-aligned-assessments-identify-develop-and-practice-2/

Tools to assess Alignment

Tools to assess Rigor

Tools to assess the quality of student work

Quality Tracking Tool

Assess the Quality of your inventory of assessments

Also use Lexicon of Quality Tracking Tool Terms (in packet)

On DESE website

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/

Educator Alignment ToolTemporarily Removed from doe web site.

Interactive data base for all educators and possible assessments that could be used for each.

It has been taken down from the web site temporarily.

Checklist Tracker

Alignment Alignment to

Common Core,PARCC, and the District Curriculum

Shifts for Common Core have been made: Complex texts Multiple texts Argument, Info, Narrative Math Practices Depth over breadth

Rigor

For Assessing Rigor and Alignment

1.Daggett’s Rigor/Relevance Scale 2.DESE’s Model Curriculum (Understanding by Design) 3.DESE’s Model Curriculum Rubrics (a destination)4.PARCC’s Task Description5.PARCC’s Rubrics for writing6.Protocols for Calibration (to use with teacher groups)7.Writing to Text Wikispace: http://tinyurl.com/l7287z9

“Task Complexity Continuum” 1 2 3 4 5MCAS ` MCAS PARCC CC Aligned ClassroomsORQ Composition multiple Authentic TasksELA ORQ Math texts Simple/Complex

School MEPID

Last Name

First Name

Grade Subject Course Course ID Potential DDM1

Potential DDM2 Potential DDM3

HS 07350 Smith Abagail 10 ELA Grade 10 ELA 01051 MCAS ELA10    

HS 07351 Smith Abagail 9 ELA World Studies 01058 Writing to text    

HS 07351 Smith Abagail 9 ELA Grade 9 ELA 01051      

HS 07352 Smith Brent 10 Math IMM 2      

HS 07352 Smith Brent 10 Math IMM 1   MCAS MATH10    

HS 07353 Smith Cathy 11 Social Science

World Studies 04053      

HS 07354 Smith Deb 12 Engineering Engineering        

HS 07355 Smith Emily 12 Science Science        

HS 07356 Smith Frank k-4 PE PE        

HS 0736 smith Gus K Math Math        

ELEM 07357 Smith Gus K ELA ELA        

ELEM 07358 Smith Heidi 1 Math Math 1        

ELEM 07358 Smith Jane 4 All Math   MCAS Math 4    

ELEM 07359 Smith Jane 4 All ELA   MCAS ELA 4    

ELEM 07360 Smith Karen 3 Technology Technology 3        

ELEM 07361 Smith Linda 4 Science Science 4        

ELEM 07362 Smith Mary 5 PE PE 5        

MS 07363 Smith Nora 6 Math Math 6        

MS 07364 Smith Oscar 6 ELA ELA 6   MCAS ELA 6    

MS 07365 Smith Pam 6 Social Science

Social Science 6        

MS 07366 Smith Quentin 6 Science Science 6   MCAS MATH 7    

MS 07367 Smith Rob 7 Math Math 7        

MS 07368 Smith Sandy 7 ELA ELA 7   MCAS ELA 7    

MS 07369 Smith Tim 7 Social Science

Social Science 7        

The Next Step?The 2011 MA Frameworks Shifts to the Common Core

Complex Texts Complex Tasks Multiple Texts Increased Writing

A Giant Step?Increase in cognitive load Mass Model Units—PBL with Performance-Based Assessments

(CEPAs) PARCC assessments require matching multiple texts

The PARCC Research Assessments

Literary Simulation Either AssessmentMay be given

Research Simulation

3-5 (E)6-8(MS)9-11(HS)

Grade Bands 3-5 (E)6-8(MS)

9-11(HS)

2 daysMid-year

DurationComputer (paper option first years)

2 daysMid-year

E, MS, HS—one extended one short literary text (digital also)HS—extended text could be literary non-fiction

“Suite” of Interrelated TextsE. 250-800 words

MS. 400=1000 wordsHS. 500-1500 words

 

E, MS, HS—one extended and three shorter informational

text (digital also) 

E—some M/C comprehension questionsMS, HS—4-6 M/C comprehension questions

Comprehension Questions

Note higher level of challenge in PARCC

E, MS, HS—6-9 M/C comprehension questions

 

E, MS, HS—Narrative about one selection

Writing Task 1 E—Summary on one text6-Summary without opinions

or judgments7,8,HS—Objective Summary

on one text

E, MS, HS—Analytic essay on one or both texts

Writing Task 2 E, MS, HS—Analytic essay on anchor text plus three other

shorter texts (May be video, podcast,

photo, etc.)

Students carefully consider two literary texts worthy of close study.

They are asked to answer a few new and more sophisticated multiple choice questions about each text to demonstrate their ability to do close analytic reading and to compare and synthesize ideas.

e.g., Which of the 6 claims from question 1 can be made after reading paragraphs 3 and 11. There may be more than one answer.)

Students write a literary analysis about the two texts.

58

Use what you have learned from reading “Daedalus and Icarus” by Ovid and “To a Friend Whose Work Has Come to Triumph” by Anne Sexton to write an essay that provides an analysis of how Sexton transforms Daedalus and Icarus.

As a starting point, you may want to consider what is emphasized, absent, or different in the two texts, but feel free to develop your own focus for analysis.

Develop your essay by providing textual evidence from both texts. Be sure to follow the conventions of standard English.

Thus, both comprehension of the 2 texts and the author’s craft are being assessed along with the ability of the student to craft a clear argument with substantiation from two texts.

59

Creating Curriculum Units That Support (or Surpass)

The Cognitive Complexity of PARCCLiterature

One central Anchor text plus other clearly related texts

Interrelated Texts on Clearly Defined and

Refined Focus

InformationalOne central anchor text plus other clearly related texts

Read anchor text for clear comprehension

Literal comprehensionLiterary techniques

Author’s craft—why did the author use these techniques

to create his message? 

Step 1Scaffolds

Socratic Seminars, Get the Gist, Interactive Notebooks, simpler exemplars, graphic

organizers

Read anchor text for clear comprehension

Literal comprehensionStructure, literary, rhetorical

techniquesAuthor’s craft—why did the

author use these techniques to create his message?

 

Relate the anchor text to the essential questions or

theme.

Going deeper Step 2Cognitive Complexity

Relate the anchor text to the essential questions or theme.

Read and comprehend additional texts and

compare and contrast to the anchor text as they relate to

the essential questions or theme

Going deeper Step 3 

AnalyzeOrganize

Cite claimsWrite argument;

present argument (project, essay, museum, debate,

etc.) reflect for metacognitive

awareness of whole process

Read and comprehend additional texts and compare and contrast to the anchor text as they relate

to the essential questions or theme

     

State assessments

Massachusetts Model Assessments (PBL/Performance Assessments)

Quality Performance Assessments (Capstones; units)

New PARCC question and task prototypes http://www.parcconline.org/samples/item-task-prototypes

Writing to Text on Wikispaces

My collected resources; many address the “giant step” of pairing texts, an increased cognitive load, and PARCC’s standard as well as curriculum models. http://tinyurl.com/l7287z9

  1 2 3 4 5 6

Topic development:The writing and artwork identify the habitat and provide details 

Little topic/idea development, organization, and/or details Little or no awareness of audience and/or task

Limited or weak topic/idea development, organization, and/or details Limited awareness of audience and/or task

Rudimentary topic/idea development and/or organization Basic supporting details Simplistic language

Moderate topic/idea development and organization Adequate, relevant details Some variety in language

Full topic/idea development Logical organization Strong details Appropriate use of language

Rich topic/idea development Careful and/or subtle organization Effective/rich use of language

Evidence and Content Accuracy: writing includes academic vocabulary and characteristics of the animal or habitat with details

Little or no evidence is included and/orcontent is inaccurate

Use of evidence and content is limited or weak

Use of evidence and content is included but is basic and simplistic

Use of evidence and accurate content is relevant and adequate

Use of evidence and accurate content is logical and appropriate

A sophisticated selection of and inclusion of evidence and accurate content contribute to an outstanding submission

Artwork; identifies special characteristics of the animal or habitat, to an appropriate level of detail

Artwork does not contribute to the content of the exhibit

Artwork demonstrates a limited connection to the content (describing a habitat)

Artwork is basically connected to the content and contributes to the overall understanding

Artwork is connected to the content of the exhibit and contributes to its quality

Artwork contributes to the overall content of the exhibit and provides details

Artwork adds greatly to the content of exhibit providing new insights or understandings

Stage 1 Desired Results

ESTABLISHED GOALS GStandards from MA Frameworks

TRANSFERStudents will be able to independently use their learning to…

TMEANING

UNDERSTANDINGS UStudents will understand that…

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

QACQUISITION

Students will know…

K

Students will be skilled at…

Stage 2 - EvidenceEvaluative Criteria Assessment EvidenceCriteria for success (Describe expectations captured in rubric.)

CURRICULUM EMBEDDED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (PERFORMANCE TASKS)

PTOTHER EVIDENCE:

OEStage 3 – Learning Plan

Summary of Key Learning Events and Instruction

 

Adapted from Understanding by Design 2.0 © 2011 Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe Used with Permission July 2012

Developing rubrics

Developing exemplars

Calibrating scores

Looking at Student Work (LASW)

http://Nsfharmony.org/protocol/a_z.html

Sample for Developing Rubrics from an assessment

Rather than first focusing on the work's quality, these processes often ask teachers to suspend suspend judgmentjudgment and describe its qualities--bringing multiple perspectives to bear on what makes students tick and how a school can better reach them.

This protocol reduces the initial anxiety reduces the initial anxiety of competition since everyone will have an example of each level.

New groups can use this as a beginning protocol to explore and develop shared expectations develop shared expectations for student learning and performance.

Each teacher brings in two or three examples of high, medium, and low level work for a specific task, test, or prompt

A simple protocol to monitor improvement monitor improvement

Teachers identify patterns patterns in student work

Teachers create an action plan based on the patternsaction plan based on the patterns

Or teachers develop rubrics as descriptors of levels of quality of student Or teachers develop rubrics as descriptors of levels of quality of student workwork

Looking at Student Work (LASW): High-Medium-Low (H-M-L) Protocol* Purpose: Teachers often use this rubric as a beginning point to monitor improvement in student work. After each LASW session teachers identify patterns in student work and then form an action plan to help students improve in the area(s) identified. New groups can use this as a beginning protocol to explore and develop shared expectations for student learning and performance.

Time Process: Process Support: 2 min 1. Before looking at the student work:

Choose a facilitator Choose a timekeeper Chose a recorder

Refer to role descriptions for individual responsibilities. Facilitator: Note the time at which reflection must begin.

10 min 2. High-Medium-Low Sorting Without consulting other group members, each person sorts

student work into High, Medium, and Low piles After everyone has sorted the work, each member briefly

shares general observations about student performance

5 min 3. Developing a Rubric (or a general list of criteria) Each member writes general descriptors for each level, H, M,

& L

15 min 4. Share descriptors and agree on a group rubric (or, less formally, a simple list of criteria that participants used to sort the work into piles)

Recorder: Record rubric or criteria on chart paper for your group.

10 min 5. Summarize your findings about student work What was notable or surprising about the criteria your group

used to sort the work? What was notable to you about the students’ understanding?

Individually reflect and write. (5 minutes) Record on chart paper. (5 minutes)

15 min 6. What are the next steps for teaching the students in the High, the Medium, and the Low group

Develop an action plan for each level of student. Record on chart paper.

10 min 7. Reflect on the protocol (Record your ideas on the Reflection Matrix) What did you gain by using this protocol? In what ways did the structure of this protocol help you and

your group understand student thinking? How could using this protocol to look at student work improve

student learning, your classroom practice, and your work with peers?

Facilitator: Make sure that all group members record their thoughts in the Reflection Matrix.

*This protocol is an adaptation of the High-Medium-Low Protocol to be used in a workshop environment.

Looking at Student Work (LASW): High-Medium-Low (H-M-L) Protocol* Purpose: Teachers often use this rubric as a beginning point to monitor improvement in student work. After each LASW session teachers identify patterns in student work and then form an action plan to help students improve in the area(s) identified. New groups can use this as a beginning protocol to explore and develop shared expectations for student learning and performance.

Time Process: Process Support: 2 min 1. Before looking at the student work:

Choose a facilitator Choose a timekeeper Chose a recorder

Refer to role descriptions for individual responsibilities. Facilitator: Note the time at which reflection must begin.

10 min 2. High-Medium-Low Sorting Without consulting other group members, each person sorts

student work into High, Medium, and Low piles After everyone has sorted the work, each member briefly

shares general observations about student performance

5 min 3. Developing a Rubric (or a general list of criteria) Each member writes general descriptors for each level, H, M,

& L

15 min 4. Share descriptors and agree on a group rubric (or, less formally, a simple list of criteria that participants used to sort the work into piles)

Recorder: Record rubric or criteria on chart paper for your group.

10 min 5. Summarize your findings about student work What was notable or surprising about the criteria your group

used to sort the work? What was notable to you about the students’ understanding?

Individually reflect and write. (5 minutes) Record on chart paper. (5 minutes)

15 min 6. What are the next steps for teaching the students in the High, the Medium, and the Low group

Develop an action plan for each level of student. Record on chart paper.

10 min 7. Reflect on the protocol (Record your ideas on the Reflection Matrix) What did you gain by using this protocol? In what ways did the structure of this protocol help you and

your group understand student thinking? How could using this protocol to look at student work improve

student learning, your classroom practice, and your work with peers?

Facilitator: Make sure that all group members record their thoughts in the Reflection Matrix.

*This protocol is an adaptation of the High-Medium-Low Protocol to be used in a workshop environment.

Timeline for Piloting

Timeline for Developing DDMs for all educatrs

Required for Piloting 2013-4

Grade

Name

Source Type of Assessme

nt

Item Type(s)

How long in use in District?

Why selected to

pilot?

Selected

Assessmen

ts  

Example HS Writing to Text

District On DemandConstructed Resp.

Constructed

New 2013 Like PARCC Research

Simulation

 

1. Early grade literacy (K-3)

               

1. Early grade math (K-3)

               

1. Middle grade math (5-8)

               

1. HS Writing to Text                

1. Trad. non-tested grade

               

                 

Other Possible Pilots                

Elementary                

Middle School                

High School                

Indirect Measures                

Specialists                

Art                

Music                

                 

September October November

December

January February March April

May June

Convene District Committee

Create School-Wide Committees

Begin work on piloted DDMs

Submit proposal for piloted DDMs by September 30

Explain DDMs and Growth to all educators

Continue to develop pre- and post-tests as grade-levels, departments, schools, teams

 

Pre-test to give time to support student’s success

Teach students and collaborate on research based methods that support student growth

Post test

Score assessments

Assess low, average, and high growth of students

Assess quality of assessment (Quality Tool)

Develop DDMs for every educator to be implemented in SY2015

At least 2 per educator, one MCAS when available (4-8)

Waiver applications due

Continue refining DDM components based on Quality Tool components

Plan for 2015 administration for all sections or a course (unlike pilots)

Continue refinement of components and plan

DDM Final Plan due

On Page 3 of agenda

Quality Alignment ToolAlignment to contentAlignment to rigorIf the assessment passes these criteria:

Then validity and reliabilityThen instructions, procedures for assessment, etc.

“Don’t let perfection get in the way of good.”

“We are all in this together”

“It will not be perfect”

“We will be making mistakes along the way.”

“We need your help to make the process better.”

Focus on Growth, not Gotcha

Form Joint Committees

Conversations are critically important

Communication is essential Using student growth as a measure of

educator effectiveness can be unsettling

Joint Meetings with Union Leaders and Members and Administration

Engage School CommitteeJohn Doherty