Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
S H A R O N L . C O N T R E R A S , P H . D . | S U P E R I N T E N D E N T
Goal V Teacher EVAAS KPI: Baseline Presentation
AUGUST 14 , 2018
MissionGuilford County students will graduate as responsible
citizens prepared to succeed in higher education,
or in the career of their choice.*
*This mission was adopted by the Guilford County Board of Education on December 12, 2000.
VisionTransforming learning and life outcomes for all students.
2
GCS Board Goal
3
Goal V: By 2022, decrease the
achievement gap between Black and
Latino students and their White
peers by 7 percentage points
(currently gaps range from 25-37
percent in reading and math).
Key Performance Indicator
4
•Percentage of teachers with high EVAAS scores
teaching in low-performing schools.
5
EVAAS* Growth Basics
*Education Value-Added Assessment
System
Growth and Proficiency
6
Proficiency: Scoring at or above
Achievement Level III on a specific test at
one point in time
Growth: Change in test scores from one
point in time to another
Growth and Proficiency7
0
20
40
60
80
100
4th 5th 6th
Achie
vem
ent
Grade LevelStudent A Student B
Proficiency
Value-Added Growth8
Students generally grow (develop academically)
year to year.
Value-added analyses examine how growth
varies from teacher to teacher, school to school,
and district to district.
EVAAS “predicts” or estimates how well a
student will do on a particular test.
If the student’s progress is better than expected,
the teacher has “Added Value”.
Achievement vs Growth
9
Student Achievement:
Where are we? Highly correlated with demographics factors
Student Growth:
How far have we come? Highly dependent on what happens as a result of
schooling rather than on demographic factors
10
11
12
Academic Growth and Percent Minority
EVAAS Values13
Values are in Standard Error (SE) units
Values generally range from about -10 to +10
A value of “0” represents average growth.
Values in the range -2.0 to +2.0 are deemed in the average range – met expected growth.
Values that are +2.0 or higher are deemed above average – exceeded expected growth.
Values that are below -2.0 are deemed below average – did not meet expected growth.
EVAAS Values14
15
Teacher EVAAS:
2016-17 Baseline Data
Teacher EVAAS Classification
16
• Exceeded Expected Growth: Growth scores at least
+2.0 standard errors from the mean
• Met Expected Growth: Growth scores between -2.0
and +2.0 standard errors from the mean
• Did Not Meet Expected Growth: Growth scores below
2.0 standard errors from the mean
Low-Performing School Classification
17
Classification #1:
25 GCS schools with the lowest Performance Composites
Compared to all other GCS schools
Classification #2:
38 GCS schools identified by the state as low-performing
Compared to all other GCS elementary & middle schools
Note: High schools are not eligible to be state-identified
as low-performing
18
KPI Baseline Data Findings:2016-17 Teacher EVAAS
18
• Low-Performing schools, using
either classification method, had:
• More teachers who did not
meet growth
• About half as many teachers
who exceeded growth
19
2016-17 Teacher Counts* for Low-Performing Schools Based on Performance Composite
19
School Type# of
Schools# of
Teachers% of
Teachers
Schools With Lowest Performance Composites
25 671 21.6%
All Other Schools 96 2,431 78.4%
Total 121 3,102 100.0%
*Teacher counts are for teachers with EVAAS data
20
2016-17 Teacher EVAAS for Low-Performing Schools Based on Performance Composite
20
17.7% 15.3%21.3%
13.7%
62.6%60.9%
64.7%
59.9%
19.7% 23.8%14.0%
26.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All NC Teachers All GCS Teachers Schools With LowestPerformance Composite
All Other Schools
Not Met Growth Met Growth Exceeded Growth
21
2016-17 Teacher Counts* for Low-Performing Schools Based on State Identification
21
School Type# of
Schools# of
Teachers% of
Teachers
State-Identified Low-Performing Schools
38 819 38.5%
Not State-Identified Low-Performing Schools**
52 1,310 61.5 %
Total 90 2,129 100.0%
*Teacher counts are for teachers with EVAAS data**High schools excluded
22
2016-17 Teacher EVAAS for Low-Performing Schools Based on State Identification
22
17.7% 15.6% 19.0%13.5%
62.6% 64.5%69.2%
61.5%
19.7% 19.9%11.7%
25.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All NC Teachers All GCS Teachers (excludinghigh schools)
State-Identified Low-Performing Schools
Not State-Identified Low-Performing Schools
Not Met Growth Met Growth Exceeded Growth
Next Steps
23
24
Next Steps
24
Performance Matters platform ties professional development to
student learning.
Provide personalized professional development opportunities based
on Teacher EVAAS.
New teacher support model that focuses on low-performing
schools.
Continue implementation of human capital strategies including
Opportunity Culture to recruit highly effective teachers to low
performing schools.
25
Next Steps
25
Begin transfer period in early spring to allow internal staff an
extended period of time to consider positions within the
district.
Provide teacher incentives based on Teacher EVAAS at the 10 lowest performing schools.
Transfers (guaranteed & administrative) will be based on
employee performance and needs of the school rather than
seniority. Seniority may be considered only if all other
criteria are equal.
Provide Teacher EVAAS KPI update with data from 2017-18
in Fall 2018.