Documentation Ideas for Standard 4

Differentiates the instructional content, process, product, and learning environment to meet individual developmental needs

• Section Summary Report of your grade book to show differentiated content and product results indicating that the tests could result in a differentiated in product.
• Lesson plan showing differentiation of content, process, product, and/or environment.
• Pictures showing differentiated learning environment.

Provides remediation, enrichment, and acceleration to further student understanding of material

• Materials of All State, District, and local honor requirements for students to participate
• Lesson plan specifically showing remediation, acceleration, and enrichment for students 
• Example of documents used to provide students’ challenges, support learning, address learning differences, differentiation, and provide remediation and acceleration to further students’ understanding of material.
• Pictures of students participating in extending/enrichment activities.

Uses flexible grouping strategies to encourage appropriate peer interaction and to accommodate learning needs/goals

• Section Summary Report of your grade book to show where students can be grouped, assist each other, and graded on summative assessment
• Lesson plans indicating how, why, and the data used to determine flexible grouping.  (Using data to determine grouping is important!)

Uses diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment data to inform instructional modifications for individual students

• Section Summary Report of your grade book to show how formative and summative assessment data were used to guide changes to instructional strategies, unit plans, next content, or next assessment.
• (Formative assessments are the teacher's greatest aid in guiding current/in-process and future instruction.  There is an enormous section in my doctoral study regarding this; not because I wanted to write so much on it, but rather because that is what researchers/literature shows.)
• Highlight diagnostic (standardized test results), formative (homework or observational notes), and/or summative data from your grade book or roll and make a notation on how, when, and why that was used to make modifications for individual and groups of students.

Demonstrates high learning expectations for all students commensurate with their developmental levels

• Examples of Signs and Vocabulary that lists the terms and symbols for concepts that are expected for students to learn and demonstrate.

Measuring student growth using student learning objectives

From: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=369
(If you haven't signed up for e-mails from ies.ed.gov, you should!)

Student learning objectives (SLOs)—classroom-specific growth targets chosen by individual teachers and approved by principals—are becoming popular as alternative measures of student growth because they can be used to evaluate teachers in any grade or subject.  Although very little of the literature on SLOs addresses their statistical properties, key findings show that:

• SLOs have the potential to better distinguish teachers based on performance than traditional evaluation metrics do, but no studies have looked at SLO reliability.  Most of the limited evidence on the statistical properties of SLOs is on the proportion of teachers achieving SLO objectives. Whether that differentiation represents true differences in teacher performance or random statistical noise is unknown.
• Little is known about whether SLOs can yield ratings that correlate with other measures of teacher performance. Only three studies have explored the relationship between SLO ratings and standardized assessment-based (value-a dded) growth measures. These studies found small but positive correlations. More research is needed as states and districts roll out SLOs as teacher evaluation measures and instructional planning tools.
• Until some of the research gaps are filled, districts that intend to use SLOs may want to roll them out for instructional planning before using them in high-stakes teacher evaluations. Several studies found teacher concerns about fairness in SLO implementation. This is no surprise, because SLOs are difficult to make valid and reliable. They are by definition customized to individual teachers and based on the professional judgments of teachers and principals. Making SLOs an important component of high-stakes evaluation could undermine their validity, because it means that teachers are in essence grading themselves.
• Studies of teacher experiences with SLOs indicate that SLOs can require substantial training and technology infrastructure and that they can be time-consuming for teachers and evaluators alike.

Teacher Pay for Performance Results

New: from the Institute of Education Sciences

To obtain hard copy of many IES products as well as hard copy and electronic versions of hundreds of other U.S. Department of Education products please visit http://www.edpubs.org or call 1-877-433-7827 (877-4-EDPUBS).

New from NCEE: Teacher Incentive Fund Implementation and Impacts of Pay-for-Performance After Two Years

Today, NCEE released the second of four evaluation reports that studies Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grants that were awarded in 2010 to support performance-based compensation systems for teachers and principals in high-need schools. The report provides basic implementation information for all 2010 TIF grantees, and more in-depth implementation and impact information for the subset of 10 districts that agreed to participate in a random assignment study. The main findings among all TIF districts with 2010 awards are: * Ninety percent of all TIF districts in 2012–2013 reported implementing at least 3 of the 4 required components for teachers, and only about one-half (52 percent) reported implementing all four. This was a slight improvement from the first year of implementation. * Near the end of the second year of implementation, 65 percent of TIF districts reported that sustainability of the program was a major challenge. In contrast, no more than one-third of districts reported that other activities related to their program were a major challenge. For the subset of 10 districts that agreed to participate in a random assignment study, key findings on the effect of pay-for-performance on educators include the following: * Few evaluation districts structured pay-for-performance bonuses to align well with TIF guidance in the grant competition notice. * Educators’ understanding of key program components improved from the first to the second year, but many teachers still did not understand that they were eligible for a bonus. They also continued to underestimate how much they could earn from performance bonuses. * Offering educators pay-for-performance had small, positive impacts on their students’ reading achievement; impacts on students’ math achievement were not statistically significant but similar in magnitude. To read the report, visit http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154020/index.asp To learn more about the study research design and the impact evaluation of TIF, visithttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_incentive.asp.