Ed Eval Guidance from State and National Resources
Each of the docs pictured above is a direct link to the PDF. Portions of the Practitioner's Guide from CCSSO focuses on the two most common forms of growth for an SLO: Simple Gain and Categorical. In addition ot MDE's FAQs, MASSP provides a great overveiw of PA-173 as well. Wayne RESA has divided up the above Guidance Document for Measuring Student Growth into six helpful sections to answer the following:
- What are some different growth models?
- Which assessment(s) might we use? (View also Indiana's Assessment Checklist or Rhode Island Toolkit).
- How might we measure student growth? (Excellent statistical resources, optional)
- How might we set appropriate standards to measure student growth? (See also RI Standard Setting)
- How might we implement the SLO process? (See also SLO Intro Page)
- How might we use formative assessment process to inform educator evaluations?
MDE plans to utilize SGPs for Student Growth
There are states who have successfully implemented different growth models through continuous stakeholder involvement and assuring the evaluation process focuses on teacher engagement and effective feedback. There are 18 Race to the Top (RTT) who were given millions of dollars to implement student growth into educator evaluations, among other requirements for the federal grant. Most of these states have moved away from a "simple or gain score model" to primarily one of three alternatives: Value-Added Models (VAM), Residual Gain Model, or Student Growth Percentiles (SGP), learn more about SGP from the video on the right from Georgia or Virginia.
Exemplary states such as Colorado balance student growth and student achievement. The student profile on the left shows how an individual student achieved over a three year period by placing a white dot at one of four levels: Developing, Approaching, Meets, Exceeds. The colored arrows describe how the student grew (SGP) relative to others across the state: Low growth (red), Average (white), High growth (green). Finally, there is a projection band for the next year depending on if the student demonstrates high, average, or low growth.
Colorado Department of Education has five guiding principals for evaluating educators fairly:
- Data should inform decisions, but human judgment will always be an essential component of evaluations.
- The implementation and evaluation of the system must embody continuous improvement.
- The purpose of the system is to provide meaningful and credible feedback that improves performance.
- The development and implementation of the evaluation systems must continue to involve stakeholders in a collaborative process.
- Educator evaluations must take place within a larger system that is aligned and supportive.
What about non-tested grades and content areas?
What about the other 20% of student growth for tested grades?
According to the American Institute of Research (AIR), 60% of our states across the nation answer this question regarding student growth with non-tested content/grades by using a PROCESS to create Student Learning Objectives (or SLOs). Maryland, as an example, uses state level testing (if applicable), then varies the Student Learning Objective and the Building Index (aka SPI) to varying percents depending on the content and grade level. Rhode Island likely has the best resources to date (2016) on Student Learning Objectives, including guidance, interactive modules, samples and rubrics.