Licensure and Preparation Subcommittee STATE BO ARD O F EDUC ATIO - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Licensure and Preparation Subcommittee STATE BO ARD O F EDUC ATIO N DEC . 17, 2019

Agenda  Pro po se d c ha ng e s to the E duc a to r Pre pa ra tio n Re po rt Ca rd  Po te ntia l upda te to middle g ra de s ma th lic e nsure a sse ssme nt  Upda te s fro m the sta te de pa rtme nt o f e duc a tio n

Educator Preparation Report Card: Changes to Scoring Framework AMY O WEN AND ERIKA LEIC HT

Annual Educator Preparation Reporting A shared data set that is cleaned and coded by a joint SBE/TDOE team and verified by EPPs underlies both reports State Board of Education TDOE Annual Reports Report Cards Detailed report designed High-level report for program approval designed for external process and EPP stakeholders continuous improvement efforts Highlights EPP Sets a minimum bar for performance on key state programs to continue priority areas operation Failure to meet Public accountability expectations for two mechanism consecutive years triggers TDOE interim review

Vision for 2019 Design Refresh  I nc re a se a c c e ssib ility & use fulne ss fo r ne w sta ke ho lde r g ro ups E d uc a tio n L e g isla to rs & Othe r Pre pa ra tio n Sta te -L e ve l Co mmunity Pro vid e rs L e a d e rs Gro ups Pro spe c tive Sc ho o l-L e ve l Distric t-L e ve l T e a c he r L e a d e rs L e a d e rs Ca nd id a te s E duc ator Pr e par ation Pr ogr am Par tne r ships with ar e a Ne w T e ac he r Hir ing Se le c tion E PPs

Collecting Feedback from Stakeholders  Pro spe c tive T e a c he r Ca ndida te s – a b o ut 40 stude nts a t 4 E PPs  Sc ho o l-L e ve l L e a de rs – Go ve rno r’ s Ac a de my fo r Sc ho o l L e a de rs (GASL )  Distric t-L e ve l L e a de rs  T OSS Bo a rd  T ASPA (distric t HR pro fe ssio na ls) Bo a rd a nd pre se nta tio n a t No v. 2019 c o nfe re nc e  E duc a to r Pre pa ra tio n Pro vide rs  Se pt. 2019 T ACT E c o nfe re nc e  Se pt. 2019 c o nve ning o f UT syste m sc ho o ls  F e e db a c k fo rms se nt to T I CUA institutio ns

2019 Advisory Council  Cha irma n Jo hn Ra g a n – T N Ge ne ra l Asse mb ly  Mr. Bo b E b y – SBE Vic e Cha ir  E PPS:  Dr. L isa Ba rro n/ Dr. Pre ntic e Cha nd le r, Austin Pe a y  Dr. De b Bo yd , L ipsc o mb  Dr. Ame lia Bro wn, UT -K no xville  Dr. E ric Cumming s, Cumb e rla nd  Dr. Ja so n Grisso m, Va nd e rb ilt  Dr. K im Ha wkins, Ca rso n-Ne wma n  Mr. Ra nd a ll L a ha nn, Na shville T e a c he r Re sid e nc y  Dr. Re ne e Murle y, UT -Cha tta no o g a  Dr. L iz Se lf, Va nd e rb ilt  Da le L ync h – T OSS  Sha ro n Ro b e rts/ Annie F re e la nd – SCORE  Dr. Bro o k De nna rd Ro sse r – K no xville Co unty Sc ho o ls

Candidate Profile

Percent with qualifying ACT, SAT, or all 3 Praxis: CORE scores  Pre vio us va lue : 3 po ints  Ne w va lue : 0 po ints (re po rte d, b ut unsc o re d)  Ra tio na le :  Sta te Bo a rd po lic y spe c ifie s the minimum sc o re s ne e de d fo r a dmissio n to a n E PP; c o mplia nc e with this po lic y is mo nito re d b y T DOE  We typic a lly o nly ha ve the se sc o re s fo r unde rg ra dua te c a ndida te s

Percent of Racially & Ethnically Diverse Completers  Pre vio us va lue : 7 po ints  Ne w va lue : 10 po ints  Ra tio na le :  Ac c o rding to a 2018 re po rt fro m T DOE , stude nts o f c o lo r ma ke up 37 pe rc e nt o f T e nne sse e ’ s K -12 stude nt po pula tio n, b ut o nly 13 pe rc e nt o f T e nne sse e te a c he rs a re pe o ple o f c o lo r.  Re se a rc h indic a te s tha t a ra c ia lly a nd e thnic a lly dive rse te a c hing fo rc e c a n ha ve a va rie ty o f po sitive impa c t o n stude nts, inc luding in the a re a s o f a c a de mic a c hie ve me nt, disc ipline , a nd so c ia l/ e mo tio na l de ve lo pme nt.

Percent of High-Demand Endorsements  Curre nt va lue : 10 po ints  Pro po se d va lue : 10 po ints  Ra tio na le :  T his me tric re c o g nize s a nd re wa rds E PPs tha t a re pre pa ring te a c he rs in the a re a s o f g re a te st ne e d.  SBE will wo rk with T DOE to upda te the list o f hig h-de ma nd e ndo rse me nts a s ne e ds c ha ng e .

Employment

First-Year Employment in TN Public Schools  Curre nt va lue : 6 po ints  Pro po se d va lue : 0 po ints (re po rte d, b ut unsc o re d)  Ra tio na le :  Ra te o f e mplo yme nt in T e nne sse e pub lic sc ho o ls va rie s g re a tly de pe nding o n the lo c a tio n a nd missio n o f e a c h E PP.  T he re is no fe a sib le wa y fo r us to tra c k o ut-o f-sta te o r priva te sc ho o l e mplo yme nt.  T DOE ’ s a nnua l re po rts o n E PPs (whic h a re use d to de te rmine pro g ra m a ppro va l) inc lude first-ye a r e mplo yme nt a s a n unsc o re d me tric .

Retention SE COND YE AR T HI RD YE AR Curre nt va lue : 9 po ints Curre nt va lue : 0 po ints Pro po se d va lue : 9 po ints Pro po se d va lue : 6 po ints Ra tio na le : Ra tio na le : ◦ Curre nt po int va lue is a ppro pria te g ive n ◦ I nc e ntivize E PPs to pre pa re te a c he rs with the impo rta nc e o f this me tric “sta ying po we r”

Provider Impact

Classroom Observation SCORE OF 3+ SCORE OF 4+ Curre nt va lue : 6 po ints Curre nt va lue : 9 po ints Pro po se d va lue : 9 po ints Pro po se d va lue : 6 po ints Ra tio na le : Ra tio na le : ◦ A te a c he r sc o ring a t le ve l 3 is ◦ T his is a hig h b a r fo r e a rly c a re e r c o nside re d to b e “me e ting te a c he rs to me e t. e xpe c ta tio ns.” ◦ We wa nt to e nc o ura g e E PPs to a im fo r this hig h b a r with the ir c o mple te rs a nd re c o g nize the m whe n the y suc c e e d.

Student Growth (TVAAS) SCORE OF 3+ SCORE OF 4+ Curre nt va lue : 10 po ints Curre nt va lue : 15 po ints Pro po se d va lue : 15 po ints Pro po se d va lue : 10 po ints Ra tio na le : Ra tio na le : ◦ A te a c he r sc o ring a t le ve l 3 is ◦ T his is a hig h b a r fo r e a rly c a re e r c o nside re d to b e “me e ting te a c he rs to me e t. e xpe c ta tio ns.” ◦ We wa nt to e nc o ura g e E PPs to a im fo r this hig h b a r with the ir c o mple te rs a nd re c o g nize the m whe n the y suc c e e d.

New Unscored Metrics  Satisfac tion data fr om T e nne sse e E duc ator Sur ve y  T N E duc a to r Surve y inc lude s a n “E a rly Ca re e r” mo dule fo r te a c he rs in the ir first thre e ye a rs o f te a c hing  T his ma y e ve ntua lly b e c o me a sc o re d me tric , b ut will b e unsc o re d this ye a r sinc e we a re re po rting it fo r the first time  Pass r ate s on e dT PA and Pr axis Subje c t Asse ssme nts  Alre a dy inc lude d in Annua l Re po rts  T his ma y b e c o me a sc o re d me tric o nc e a ll re le va nt c o ho rts ha ve e dT PA re sults

Performance Categories PRE VI OUS VE RSI ON: 4 CAT E GORI E S NE W VE RSI ON: 3 CAT E GORI E S Category Percent of Points Category Percent of Points 4 80.1%-100% Exceeds 80%-100% Expectations 3 60.1%-80% Meets 40%-79.9% 2 40.1%-60% Expectations 1 0%-40% Does Not Meet 0%-39.9% Expectations

Why three categories?  Go a ls o f pe rfo rma nc e c a te g o rie s:  Ma ke me a ning ful distinc tio ns a mo ng E PPs  Hig hlig ht to p pe rfo rme rs  E spe c ia lly fo r sma ll E PPs, ma king fine distinc tio ns a mo ng pro g ra ms tha t a re pe rfo rming in the middle o f the pa c k is diffic ult  Why a re we ma king this c ha ng e no w?  Sinc e we a re ma king c ha ng e s to ho w se ve ra l me tric s a re we ig hte d , c ha ng ing the numb e r o f pe rfo rma nc e c a te g o rie s he lps a vo id fa lse e q uiva le nc ie s with pre vio us ye a rs’ re sults

Performance Benchmarks  As in pre vio us ye a rs, e a c h me tric ha s b o th a floor a nd a tar ge t .  E PPs a t o r b e lo w the flo o r fo r a pa rtic ula r me tric will re c e ive 0 po ints fo r tha t me tric .  E PPs a t o r a b o ve the ta rg e t fo r a pa rtic ula r me tric will re c e ive full po ints fo r tha t me tric .  E PPs b e twe e n the flo o r a nd the ta rg e t will re c e ive a pro po rtio na l a mo unt o f po ints.  T o me e t e xpe c tations o n a me tric , a n E PP must re c e ive a t le a st 40% o f po ssib le po ints.  T o e xc e e d e xpe c tations o n a me tric , a n E PP must re c e ive a t le a st 80% o f po ssib le po ints.

How are benchmarks set?  I n pre vio us ye a rs, the flo o r a nd ta rg e t fo r e a c h me tric we re b a se d o n pe rc e ntile s. T he pe rc e ntile s we re se t in 2016 a nd ha ve no t b e e n re se t sinc e the n, so a ll E PPs c o uld sho w impro ve me nt.  F o r the 2019 Re po rt Ca rd, we use d 3- ye ar age s (no t inc luding the c urre nt ave r ye a r) to se t pe rfo rma nc e b e nc hma rks. T he se a ve ra g e s we re ro unde d to pro duc e the fina l b e nc hma rks sho wn o n the ne xt slide .