Data

Data is becoming a re-occurring theme at my school.  While this is nothing new to most of us, it's implications and use - in the TKES process - probably are.

Consider Standard 2: Instructional Planning: The teacher plans using state and local school district curricula and standards, effective strategies, resources, and data [emphasis added] to address the differentiated needs of all students. It is because of the lack of specific data that a teacher in a pilot program initially received a Level II in this area.  Ultimately, through more observations and her ability to document how she was using data, she scored Level III.  But, the initial scare (of not passing) was real.

Currently, we're being told to carefully consider 2.1: Analyzes and uses student learning data to inform planning [emphasis added].  To me, that means that my current formative assessments are helping me determine the lesson plans leading to the summative assessment.  My summative assessment is planned, but my lesson planning is flexible to make sure the students arrive at the summative prepared and on time.  I don't want my students "just" to make an A, I really want them to learn the material and demonstrate that by making an A!  I want them to be changed people because of my instruction! 

After my summative assessment, I will log the grades, print the report, and store at least one grade document in my notebook under 2.1 with a note in how the summative report will - or did - guide and direct my lesson plans for the next summative assessment.  Essentially, if my students hit the target for this assessment, I'll keep the plans similar; if they don't demonstrate mastery, then I'll adjust my lesson plans.  We, probably, all show that our data guides how we give instruction to the next unit, but now we have to intentionally make those decisions and document it.

In short, if the lesson process worked, keep it; if it didn't, analyze the test scores and change the instruction to adapt.

As I noted on pp. 51-52 of my doctoral study

Formative assessments.  McLeod (2005) noted that meta-analytic research showed effective formative assessments have a greater impact on improving student achievement, including closing the achievement gap, than “any other instructional practice” (p. 4), supply updated information to allow for redirected instruction, and can serve as benchmarks for annual learning goals.  In the classroom setting, McLeod asserted that, “data analysis should cause targeted instructional changes to improve student learning” (p. 5) and student data should be a part of continuous instructional improvement (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Hamilton et al., 2009; Huebner, 2009).  Teachers should make instructional decisions based on data from their students’ work accordingly (Lieberman & Miller, 2001), and formative assessments serve as guides for students’ progress toward annual learning goals (Huebner, 2009; McLeod, 2005).  Researchers found that effective formative assessment practices have shown to be powerful tools to improve student achievement and that formative assessments provide updated information to which the teacher could allow for redirected instruction that could benefit student learning (Huebner, 2009; McLeod, 2005; Popham, 2009b).  Formative assessments can help develop the student-teacher interaction, student motivation, and student achievement (Brookhart et al., 2008; Wiliam, 2007) and can highlight student accomplishments (Tomlinson, 2007).  Researchers showed frequent formative assessments revealed students’ thinking (Bransford et al., 2000) and could provide a “realistic measurement of students’ progress” (Dochy et al., 1999, p. 170).  The initial content or unit lesson plan should allow for predesigned formative assessments (Black & Wiliam, 2009).  As indicated in the March 2010 edition of the First Bell newsletter, the superintendent (Local County School District, 2010a) noted that teachers in Local County use informal benchmark information to design classroom instruction.

Cason, M. G. (2011). Activating Prior Knowledge With Cues and Questions As a Key Instructional Strategy to Increase Student Achievement in Low Socioeconomic Middle Schools. (Ed.D. 3469058), Walden University, United States -- Minnesota. Retrieved from http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2459520451&Fmt=7&clientId=70192&RQT=309&VName=PQD

In short(er): give an assessment, print out the report, store it under Standard 2, and show in your lesson plans how that assessment is guiding your instruction/curriculum/planning for the next unit.  I included in my lesson plans a statement that includes, "____ (Performance Task(s), Post-Test, Unit Test, Section Test) will guide future ___ (today's instruction, future planning, next assessment, next content, next unit)"

Hope this helps.  See my website for more information: https://sites.google.com/site/gcason123/

Summative Assessment

Georgia Department of Education. (2014). Teacher Keys Effectiveness System Handbook.  Atlanta:  Retrieved from http://legisweb.state.wy.us/InterimCommittee/2012/TKESHandbook.pdf

“All Rights Reserved”

p. 17

Suggestions

When it comes time to conduct the formative and summative assessments, evaluators must rate teachers on all ten performance standards. Consequently, as evaluators conduct observations and review documentation, it is important that they keep all ten standards in mind. When conducting walkthroughs, evaluators should focus on a limited number of performance standards and/or indicators. They may find it useful to annotate the TAPS Reference Sheet as to which data source (observation and/or documentation) is likely to provide evidence related to a particular standard. Evaluators also may find it useful to review the teacher-generated listings from the Look Fors and Red Flags activity, and the Matching Observation and Documentation with Performance Standards activity used during the Orientation and Familiarization sessions with the teachers.

p. 20

Summative Assessment

After collecting information throughout the evaluation process, evaluators will provide a summative assessment of a teacher’s performance. Evaluators will use the Summative Assessment Report Form to evaluate performance on each standard using the four-category rating scale. By receiving a rating on each individual standard, the teacher is provided with a diagnostic profile of his or her performance for the evaluation cycle.

In making judgments for the summative assessment on each of the ten teacher performance standards, the evaluator should determine where the “totality of the evidence and most consistent practice” [emphasis in original] exists, based on observations, documentation of practice and process provided by the teacher, and Surveys of Instructional Practice. “Totality of the evidence and most consistent practice” [emphasis in original] as used here is intended to mean the overall weight of evidence. In other words, as applied to the four-point rating scale, the evaluator should ask, “In which rating category does the totality of the evidence fall?” In many instances, there will be performance evidence that may fit in more than one category. To reach a decision for aggregating the total set of data to reach a summative decision, the evaluator should ask “In which rating category does the evidence best fit?”

In addition to the ten separate ratings, the teachers will receive an overall TAPS point score.  Exemplary ratings are worth 3 points, Proficient ratings are worth 2 points, and Needs Development ratings are worth 1 point. Ineffective ratings have no point value. Through the GaDOE TLE Electronic Platform, evaluators will receive a point value for all ten standards which will produce a final TAPS score.