New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation 2011–12

www.engageNY.orgwww.engageNY.org1

New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation

2011–12

July 2012

PRESENTATIONas of 7/9/12

www.engageNY.orgwww.engageNY.org2 www.engageNY.orgwww.engageNY.org2

Today’s Agenda

Background The What, Why, and How of Growth Models and

Measures Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation What Data Will Be Available and When?


Background


Evaluating Educator Effectiveness


The What, Why, and How of Growth Models and Measures


By the End of This Section…. You should be able to:

–Explain why the state is measuring student growth and not achievement

–Describe how the state is measuring growth compared to similar students

–Define a student growth percentile and mean growth percentile


0

200

400

600

800

Student AStudent BStudent CStudent DStudent E

Ms. Smith

Prior Performance

0

200

400

600

800


Ms. Jones

Prior Performance

Prior Year Performance for Students in Two Teachers’ Classrooms

─ Proficiency


0

200

400

600

800


Ms. Smith

Prior Performance Current Performance

0

200

400

600

800


Ms. Jones

Prior Performance Current Performance

Current Year Performance of Same Students

─ Proficiency


Prior and Current Year Performance for Ms. Smith’s Students

Ms. Smith’s Class

Prior Score Current Score

Student A 450 510

Student B 470 500

Student C 480 525

Student D 500 550

Student E 600 650


2011 2012

Student A

450

High SGPs

Low SGPs

Student A’s Current Year Performance Compared to “Similar” Students

If we compare student A’s current score to other students who had the same prior score (450), we can measure her growth

relative to other students. We

describe her growth as a “student

growth percentile” (SGP). Student A’s SGP is the result of a statistical model and in this example is 45,

meaning she performed better in

the current year than 45% of similar

students.


Comparing Performance of “Similar” Students

Prior Year Score

Given any prior score, we see a range of

current year scores, which give us SGPs of 1 to 99.


SGPs for Ms. Smith’s Students

Ms. Smith’s Class

Prior Score

Current Score

SGP

Student A 450 510 45

Student B 470 500 40

Student C 480 525 70

Student D 500 550 60

Student E 600 650 40


Student Growth Percentiles: True or False?

1. A student with an SGP of 50 performed better than 50% of similar students.

2. A student with an SGP of 80 must be proficient.

3. A student with an SGP of 20 grew less than a student with an SGP of 60.

4. The highest SGP that a student can receive is 99.

5. A student with an SGP of 80 grew twice as much as a student with an SGP of 40.


From Student Growth to Teachers and Principals

Ms. Smith’s Class

SGP

Student A

45

Student B

40

Student C

70

Student D

60

Student E

40

To measure teacher performance, we find the mean growth percentile (MGP) for his or her students. To find an educator’s mean growth percentile, take the average of SGPs in the classroom. In this case:

Step 1: 45+40+70+60+40=255

Step 2. 255/5=51

Ms. Smith’s mean growth percentile (MGP) is 51, meaning on average her students performed better than 51% of similar students.

A principal’s performance is measured by finding the mean growth percentile for all students in the school.


Which Students Count in a Teacher’s or Principal’s MGP for 2011–12?

Student has valid test

scores for at least 2011–12 and 2010–11

Student has valid test

scores for at least 2011–12 and 2010–11

Student scores do not

count for 2011–12

Student scores do not

count for 2011–12

Yes

Student meets continuous enrollment

standard for 2011–12

Student meets continuous enrollment

standard for 2011–12

No

Student growth is

attributed to the teacher

and the school

Student growth is

attributed to the teacher

and the school

Yes

No

Expected for 2012–13: students weighted by

duration of instructional linkage

Expected for 2012–13: students weighted by

duration of instructional linkage


From Student Growth to Teachers and Principals

In order for an educator to receive a growth score, he or she must have a minimum sample size of 16 student scores in ELA or mathematics across all grades taught.

Examples:

–A teacher has a self-contained classroom with 8 students who take the 4th grade ELA and math assessments; this teacher would then have 16 student scores contributing to his or her growth score.

–A teacher has a class with 12 students in varied grades (4th, 5th, 6th) who take the ELA and math assessments for their respective enrolled grade level; this teacher would then have 24 student scores contributing to his or her growth score.

If an educator does not have 16 student scores, he or she will not receive a growth score from the state and will not receive information in the reporting system.

–Educators likely to have fewer than 16 scores should use student learning objectives (SLOs).


MGPs and Statistical Confidence

8787

Confidence Range

Upper

Limit

Lower

Limit

MGP

• 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 in their MGP and the variability of student performance in the classroom.


Pause and Reflect: Mean Growth Percentiles

We talked about:–How to find a mean growth percentile (MGP)–How to interpret an MGP–What students are counted in an MGP–How many student scores are needed to provide an MGP–How a measure of statistical confidence (upper and lower

limits of a 95% confidence range) will be provided with MGPs and why


Expanding the Definition of “Similar” Students

So far we have been talking about “similar” students as those with the same prior year assessment score

We will now add two additional features to the conversation:

Two additional years of prior assessment scores– Remember—a student MUST have current year and prior year

assessment score to be included

Student-level factors–Economic disadvantage (ED)–Students with disabilities (SWDs)–English language learners (ELLs)


Adjustments for Three Student-Level Factors in Measuring Student Growth

Student

performance

Teacher

Instruction

Other factors(12–13) Economic

disadvantageLanguage

proficiency

Disability


2011 2012

Student A

450

High SGPs

Low SGPs

Student A’s Current Year Performance Compared to “Similar” Students

If we compare student A’s current score to other students who had the same prior score (450), we can measure his or her growth relative to

other students. We describe that growth as a student growth percentile (SGP).

Student A’s SGP is the result of a statistical

model and in this example is 45,

meaning student A performed better in

the current year than 45% of similar

students.


2011 2012

Student A

450

High SGPs

Low SGPs

Expanding the Definition of “Similar” Students to Include Economically Disadvantaged—An Example

Now if student A is economically

disadvantaged, we compare student A’s current score to other students who had the same prior score (450) AND who are also

economically disadvantaged. In

this new comparison group,

we see that student A now has

an SGP of 48.


Further Information on Including Student Characteristics in the Growth Model

The following slides were developed using sample data from 2010–2011.

–The “combined” MGPs on the charts have been calculated at the educator level (combining all grades and subjects).

–Not all districts provided data linked to teachers for grades 4–8 ELA/Math in 2010–11.


Teacher MGPs after Accounting for Economic Disadvantage

Taking student-level characteristics into account helps ensure educators with many students with those characteristics have a fair chance to achieve high or low MGPs. For example, note that for teachers with any percent of economically disadvantaged students, teacher MGPs range from 1 to 99.

NOTE: Beta results using available 2010–11 data.


Teacher MGPs after Accounting for SWD



Teacher MGPs after Accounting for ELL

Percent of ELL Students in Class



“Similar” Students: A Summary

“Similar” Student Characteristics

Unadjusted Mean Growth Percentiles

Adjusted Mean Growth Percentiles

Up to Three Years of Prior Achievement

Up to Three Years of Prior Achievement

English Language Learner (ELL) Status

Students with Disabilities (SWD) Status

Economic Disadvantage

Reported to Educators Reported to Educators

Used for Evaluation


One Last Feature of the Growth Model….

All tests contain measurement error,

with greater uncertainty for

highest and lowest achieving students

All tests contain measurement error,

with greater uncertainty for

highest and lowest achieving students

The New York growth model accounts for measurement error in computing student growth percentiles.


State Growth Model Summary

Growth model for 2011–12 only for grades 4–8 ELA/Math for teachers and principals



–Explain why the state is measuring student growth and not achievement

–Describe how the state is measuring growth compared to similar students

–Define a student growth percentile and mean growth percentile


Using Growth Measures for Educator Evaluation



–Explain how growth ratings and scores will be obtained, using illustrative data


Growth Ratings and Score Ranges

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.


Distribution of 2010–11 Teacher-Level MGPs

MGP

1 50 99


For

illustrative

purposes

only

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4N

umbe

r of

Tea

cher

s

Distribution of Teacher Growth ScoresDistribution of Mean Student Growth Percentiles (Teacher Level)

Per

cen

t o

f M

GP

s


MGPs and Statistical Confidence

8787

Confidence Range

Upper

Limit

Lower

Limit

MGP

• 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.


HEDI Classification Approach for Teachers (using 2010–11 sample data)

Effective requires MGPs within 1 standard deviation of the average MGP of 51.

–MGPs between 40 and 61 will earn Effective ratings.

Well Above Average (Highly Effective) requires–MGP of 62 or higher–AND confidence range above 51. (If not, rating is

Effective.)

Well Below Average (Ineffective) requires–MGP of 39 or lower–AND confidence range must be less than 51. (If not,

rating is Developing.)


Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Teachers

Mean Growth

Percentile ≥62

Lower Limit > 51

Highly Effective: Results are well

above state average for

similar students

Mean Growth

Percentile ≤39

Upper Limit < 51

Ineffective: Results are well

below state average for

similar students

Developing: Results are below state average for similar students

No Effective: Results equal

state average for similar students

Mean Growth Percentile Confidence Range Growth Rating

Mean Growth

percentile 40–61

YesAnyYes


HEDI Classification Approach for Principals (using 2010–11 sample data)

Same methodology as for Teachers. Slightly different cut scores.

Effective requires MGPs within 1 standard deviation of the average MGP of 50.

–MGPs between 43 and 57 will earn Effective ratings.

Well Above Average (Highly Effective) requires:–MGP of 58 or higher–AND confidence range above 50. (If not, rating is

Effective.)

Well Below Average (Ineffective) requires–MGP of 42 or lower–AND Confidence Range must be less than 50. (If not,

rating is Developing.)


Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

From MGPs to Growth Ratings: Principals

Mean Growth

Percentile ≥ 58

Lower Limit > 50

Highly Effective: Results are well

above state average for

similar students

Mean Growth

Percentile ≤ 42

Upper Limit < 50

Ineffective: Results are well

below state average for

similar students

Developing: Results are below state average for similar students

No Effective: Results equal

state average for similar students

Mean Growth Percentile Confidence Range Growth Rating

Mean Growth

percentile 43–57

YesAnyYes


Illustrating Possible Teacher Growth Ratings

MGP 1 MGP 99

Well Below

Average

(39)

Well Below

Average

(39)

Average

(51)

Average

(51)

Well Above

Average

(62)

Well Above

Average

(62)

MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP



MGP 1 MGP 99

Well Below

Average

(39)

Well Below

Average

(39)

Average

(51)

Average

(51)

Well Above

Average

(62)

Well Above

Average

(62)

MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP



Ineffective

Developing

Highly Effective

Effective

MGP 1 MGP 99

Well Below

Average

(39)

Well Below

Average

(39)

Average

(51)

Average

(51)

Well Above

Average

(62)

Well Above

Average

(62)

MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP

MGP

Developing



Effective

Effective

MGP 1 MGP 99

Well Below

Average

(39)

Well Below

Average

(39)

Average

(51)

Average

(51)

Well Above

Average

(62)

Well Above

Average

(62)

MGP

MGP


Illustrative Results: Teachers(Using 2010–11 sample data)

Rating &Points (2011–12 )

Number of Teacher MGPs

Percent of Teacher MGPs

Highly Effective18–20

1618 7%

Effective9–17

16,681 76%

Developing3–8

2015 10%

Ineffective0–2

1419 7%

Points available within each HEDI category will be assigned based on educator MGP


Illustrative Results: Principals(Using 2010–11 sample data)

Rating &Points (2011–12)

Number of Principal MGPs

Percent of Principal MGPs

Highly Effective18–20

345 10%

Effective9–17

2696 75%

Developing3–8

318 9%

Ineffective0–2

241 7%

Points available within each HEDI category will be assigned based on educator MGP



–Explain how growth ratings and scores are obtained


What Data Will Be Available and When


Data — What to Expect When

Growth scores

provided to

districts

Mid-July

Test scores finalized

and teacher linkage

data final submission

Early fallMid-August

Online reporting

system available


Data — What to Expect in AugustData Elements (for teachers and schools) Unadjusted mean growth percentiles (Unadjusted MGPs) Adjusted mean growth percentiles (Adjusted MGPs and upper and lower

limits based on confidence range for these adjusted MGPs) Percent of students above the State median: this will be provided at the

teacher and school level, and can be used as a local measure in APPR Number of student scores included Growth rating (HEDI) Growth score (0–20)

Breakdowns (by teacher and school) MGPs by subject, grade, and overall (not HEDI)

– Can be used with SLOs as part of the Comparable Measures or Locally Selected Subcomponent

Overall MGPs for subgroups — ELL, SWD, Economic Disadvantage, High- and Low-Achieving

– Subgroup scores will not be included on reports if there are fewer than 16 student scores


One Teacher’s Information — August

Number of

Student Scores

Percent of Students Above

the State Median

Unadjusted MGP

Adjusted MGP

Adjusted MGP

Growth Rating

Growth ScoreLower Limit Upper Limit

Jane Smith 56 60 70 75 65 85 Highly

Effective 18

Number of

Student Scores


the State Median

Unadjusted MGP

Adjusted MGP

Adjusted MGP

Lower Limit Upper Limit

Jane Smith

Math

Math Grade 4 28 70 75 78 65 88

ELA

ELA Grade 4 28 50 65 68 55 79

Students with disabilities 4 * * * * *

English language learners 0 * * * * *

Economically disadvantaged 2 * * * * *

Low achieving (Level 1) 4 * * * * *

High achieving (Level 4) 4 * * * * *


Number of Students


the MedianUnadjusted

MGPAdjusted

MGP

Adjusted MGP

Lower Limit Upper Limit

Jane Smith

Math

Math Grade 4 28 70 75 78 65 88

ELA

ELA Grade 4 28 50 65 68 55 79

Students with disabilities 4 * * * * *

English language learners 0 * * * * *

Economically disadvantaged 2 * * * * *

Low achieving 4 * * * * *

High achieving 4 * * * * *

Adjusted MGP: 75

Adjusted MGP: 75

Number of Students


the MedianUnadjusted

MGPAdjusted

MGP

Adjusted MGP

Growth Rating

Growth ScoreLower Limit Upper Limit

Jane Smith 56 60 70 75 65 85Highly

Effective 18

2 SWD students, 0 ELL students, 1 econ

disadvantaged student, 2 high- and

2 low-achieving students

2 SWD students, 0 ELL students, 1 econ

disadvantaged student, 2 high- and

2 low-achieving students

Math number of

student scores:

28

Math number of

student scores:

28

ELA number of

student scores:

28

ELA number of

student scores:

28

Total number of

student scores:

56

Total number of

student scores:

56

Upper and lower limits of

adjusted MGP: 65 and 85

Upper and lower limits of

adjusted MGP: 65 and 85

Growth rating of highly

effective and growth score of

18

Growth rating of highly

effective and growth score of

18

60 percent of students above

the State Median

60 percent of students above

the State Median

Unadjusted MGP: 70 Unadjusted MGP: 70

One Teacher’s Information — August

Adjusted MGPs by subject—can be used in an SLO for the Comparable

Measures subcomponent

Adjusted MGPs by subject—can be used in an SLO for the Comparable

Measures subcomponent

No scores reported here since fewer

than 16 student scores in a sub-

group

No scores reported here since fewer

than 16 student scores in a sub-

group

Unadjusted MGPs by subject

Unadjusted MGPs by subject


Scavenger Hunt and Quiz1. What is Ms. Smith’s overall

adjusted MGP?2. What are the upper and lower

confidence limits for Ms. Smith’s overall MGP and what do they represent?

3. How many scores are included from Ms. Smith’s class for ELA?

4. What is the adjusted MGP for Ms. Smith’s class in ELA?

5. How do Ms. Smith’s high-achieving students compare to her low-achieving students in terms of growth?

6. What score is Ms. Smith’s growth rating based on?


Definitions 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 same prior test scores, ELL, SWD, and economic disadvantage status

ELLs: English language learners SWD: students with disabilities Economic disadvantage: a student who participates in,

or whose family participates in, economic assistance programs such as the Free- or Reduced-price Lunch Programs (FRPL), Social Security Insurance (SSI), Food Stamps, Foster Care and others


Definitions High-achieving, low-achieving: defined by the

performance of students based on prior year state assessment scores (i.e., Level 1 = low-achieving, Level 4 = high-achieving)

MGP (mean growth percentile): the average of the student growth percentiles attributed to a given educator

“Unadjusted” MGP: an MGP based on SGPs that have NOT accounted for ELL, SWD, and economic disadvantage status

“Adjusted” MGP: an MGP based on SGPs that HAVE accounted for ELL, SWD, and economic disadvantage status

Growth rating: HEDI rating based on growth Growth score: growth subcomponent points from 0–20


Definitions Measurement error: uncertainty in test scores due to

sampling of content and other factors Standard error: a measure of the statistical uncertainty

surrounding a score Standard deviation: a measure that shows the spread

of scores around the mean Upper/lower limit: highest and lowest possible MGP

taking statistical confidence into account Confidence range: range of MGPs within which we

have a given level of statistical confidence that the true MGP falls (95% statistical confidence level used for state growth measure)


Documents

New York State Growth Model for Educator Evaluation 2011–12