Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/68725
Teacher Accountability - DPAS II-Revised What about next year? The DoE plan still calls for all educator summative ratings to be based on Components 1-5 beginning next year. of overall rating, though Component 5 is still the determin- ing factor for a rating of Highly Effective). For all others, Component 5 will be based on "multiple measures" of student growth and/or performance indicators. Details about how Component 5 F ratings will be calculated next year, given the addition of multiple measures and performance indica- tors, will be developed over the summer. This information will be made available to all educators by July 31. But is DCAS valid, reliable? Using the student DCAS tests for educator accountability assumes that the test results are reliable, tied to curricula, and reflect stu- dent progress, and are, therefore, valid. That's a difficult assumption to accept, given that: • The "floor and ceiling" issue is not resolved. What was promised was a DCAS system that would show progress for all students. DCAS, however, only allows for one or teachers in DCAS-tested subjects, DCAS will account for 50% of Component 5 (20% year above grade level and one year below grade level. Students that excel two years above their grade level, and students who make much progress, but are still two grades below, will not show progress. This problem can only be solved with more test items, which means more money. Given this limitation, whom a teacher gets in his/her classroom does really matter. This also begs the question: If we can't afford a student testing system that will reliably assess student progress, then why do it? • Several schools experienced serious technical issues in admin- istering the test. In addition, many schools had to delay their adminis- tration. • Educators report students who "blow off" the test, filling in any answer, since its results mean noth- ing to them and are not tied to grades or graduation. How can you hold a teacher accountable for those results? • The new student tests currently being developed by the Work Groups for other academic subjects beyond Reading and Mathematics ("multiple measures") are just that, tests. We need project-based assessments as well to reflect how teachers teach and students learn in today's classrooms. In addition, these "multiple meas- ure" tests are not computer-adap- Sample data for class where 20% of ELA and Math students meet their growth targets Component V Overview Teacher Name: Mr. Thomas Grade: 4 Subject: ELA & Math 20% Summative Rating Based on Components I-IV: Effective Detail: Student ID SWD Status 1 No 2 No 3 No 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 No 8 No 9 No ELL Status No No No No No Yes No No No 10 No No 1 No 2 No 3 Yes 4 No 5 No 6 Yes 7 No 8 No 9 No No No No No No No No No Yes 10 No No Total Number of Targets Met Total Number of Targets Subject ELA ELA ELA ELA ELA ELA ELA ELA ELA ELA Math Math Math Math Math Math Math Math Math Math Percent of Student Growth Targets Met Fall Score (Actual) 572 578 607 616 639 662 670 678 710 718 671 674 677 685 693 720 722 727 750 779 Spring Score (Target)* Spring Score (Actual) 640 562 644 594 667 625 674 700 692 653 708 581 716 672 722 688 747 698 754 769 730 673 733 804 736 552 744 693 751 678 778 764 780 703 785 793 808 746 836 801 Target Met NOT MET NOT MET NOT MET MET NOT MET NOT MET NOT MET NOT MET NOT MET MET NOT MET MET NOT MET NOT MET NOT MET NOT MET NOT MET MET NOT MET NOT MET 4 20 20% *Based on the average growth made by students over the first two years of DCAS (2010-11 and 2011-12), who had the same fall DCAS score, the same SWD or ELL designation (SWD, ELL, or non-SWD/ELL), and were in the same grade and subject. tive, so that a growth score will not be able to be determined! DSEA leadership and staff contin- ue to meet often to discuss these issues, ask these questions, and are hopeful they can be resolved. Another wrinkle, of course, is that the "Common Core" curricula for English Language Arts and Mathematics are to be integrated into Delaware's K-12 curricula beginning in 2014 when a new stu- dent testing system is to be imple- mented at the same time! Schools eligible for retention incentives announced but given option not to participate On May 11 the Delaware Delaware Department of Education announced 30 schools whose educators may be eligible to participate in the state's $10,000 reten- tion initiative. gible buildings will participate. If they opt to do so, highly-effective principals, assistant principals and teachers would be eligible for a financial incentive of $10,000, funded by part of the state's feder- al Race to the Top grant. Selected educators must com- mit to remain in their respective D www.dsea.org istrict and charter school leadership have been asked to decide if their eli- schools for at least two additional years as part of the program. The financial reward will be linked to that commitment. The eligible schools are: Brandywine School District's Harlan Elementary Christina's Bancroft, Elbert- Palmer, Oberle, Pulaski and Stubbs elementary schools; Bayard Middle; and Glasgow High. Capital's Dover High Indian River's John Clayton Elementary Red Clay's Highlands, Lewis Dual Language, Marbrook, Mote, Shortlidge and Warner elementary schools; and Stanton and A.I. duPont middle schools. New Castle County Vo-Tech's Howard High School of Technology Laurel's Laurel Middle School. Seaford'sWest Seaford Elementary Charter schools: Academy of Dover, Delaware College Prepatory, EastSide, Edison, Family Foundations, Kuumba, Moyer, Positive Outcomes and Prestige Academy. How were schools chosen? The Delaware Department of Education chose schools, with more than 100 students and DCAS-tested grade levels, based upon: • A school's inclusion in the state's Partnership Zone • School's appearance in the "Top 15" on at least two of the following three statewide categories, exclud- ing Partnership Zone schools: highest percentages of minority students, highest percentages of students on free- and reduced- price lunches, and highest per- centages of English language learners. • A school with 85 percent of stu- dents in any one of those three categories that has not already been selected. The names of the school dis- tricts choosing to participate had not been released at press time. May/June 2012 DSEA ACTION! 11