Teacher of Record, Linkage and Shared attribution

Hi, Ellen & Everyone; here in Oklahoma, the SDE is utilizing Batelle for Kids (a Gates-funded grant & project) for what is termed Roster Verification.  This year participation is voluntary, but next year the platform is mandatory for all Oklahoma teachers.  Teachers will have to go online via a link and verify the percentage of time they have had each of the students in their classes.  Principals/administrators must do the final verification and submission. 

Our unofficial stand is it's happening, so we want teachers to have accurate rosters since this info. will be used for value-added computation.  It looks like the 50% quantitative portion (with value-added in some districts) will be put on hold for 2 more years everywhere except Tulsa, which created the Tulsa Model Evaluation System to comply with SB 2033 which is currently used in 95% of OK school districts...but roster verification is the last piece in the puzzle before that happens.

Here's a link:  http://www.ok.gov/sde/tle-roster-verification  Lots of info. at this site, but we have no way to know yet if this system is accurate. 

Hope this helps!  Kim Littrell, OEA Teaching & Learning Specialist

DPAS II Student Improvement - guide.pdfTitle 14 Chapter 12.pdf

Hi Ellen, 

I'm attaching for you a document that outlines our current system for measuring and attributing student achievement.  I'm also including a copy of Delaware code Title 14, Chapter 12 which deals with evaluation.  The first document explains the measures used, how educators are assigned to groups, the measures mandated for each group, and defines "Teacher of record."  Title 14, Chapter 12, Section 1270 (c) is important in that it specifies that if a student has missed more than 15% of class time, the student's performance evaluation cannot be used to evaluate a teacher. 

Our organization worked with the DOE to devise a system that was, as the department has described it, "fair, transparent, easy to understand, and respectful of the profession."  As we complete the first year of full implementation, DSEA is pushing the department to address the flaws that were evident within the system.  We still have questions about the growth model being used and whether the formula accurately assesses student growth.  We were also not satisfied with the content area multiple measures supplied to teachers by the state.  They were late coming online and a sizeable number of them were of poor quality or totally inaccurate.  The measures also varied significantly in rigor. 

Hope this helps.  Let me know if you need something more, 

Deb Stevens 

Director of Instructional Advocacy

Delaware State Education Association

136 East Water Street

Dover, DE 19901

302-734-5834

Thanks! This is very helpful especially since we have BFK in Ohio. It is interesting to see how the BFK has been tailored to meet needs in other states. We are attempting to address the issue in Ohio of attendance-currently it allows students to be absent 66 days (unexcused only) of 180 and still be considered valid data!

Has anyone dealt with or considered how specific groups of educators who may not be considered the primary 'teacher of record' (Title One interventionists, special education interventionists, educators for gifted providing enrichment, etc...) will be accounted for within linkage percentages.  There are two scenarios most educators consider:

True collaborative co/team teaching-If teachers plan, instruct, enrich and/or intervene in this manner all members of the 'team' would share attribution equally.

Primary Teacher of Record-  The course/grade level teacher teaches/provides the instruction for the required material (4th grade mathematics, 6th grade reading, etc..)would receive the entire linkage percentage. Title One interventionists, special education interventionists, educators for gifted providing enrichment, etc... would be viewed as 'supporting' the efforts of the designated primary teacher's efforts for the grade material and thus would not receive any percentage.  This second scenario raises questions regarding how quantitative measures embedded in teacher effectiveness models would be established for non-teacher of record. Are either of your states implementing or have implemented 'student learning objectives' as a multiple measure?

Ellen Adornetto

Education Reform Consultant

Ohio Education Association

Missouri has not set a required percent of evaluation that must be based on state tests, so we have escaped for now the linkage question. However, when the state began providing VAM and SGP data to districts on individual students, we started recommending that our members keep a copy of their class rosters each year, to include the number of days absent, if they enrolled late, if they went to another teacher for instruction of a tested subject, and if so, an estimated percent of instruction in that subject for each teacher, if the student had an IEP or was ESL, notes of any significant factors that would influence the test scores of that student (like a death in the family) or the test scores of the class (you had a very disruptive student and did not get support you needed from the administration).  This is because districts can do the math and at any time, even 3 to 5 years down the road, could decide to include these test results in your evaluation.  They'll need their own documents to defend and verify that the correct students are linked to the record.  Such documents could help the UD save your job.  

Missouri's Dept. of Education is encouraging the use of SLOs as a multiple measure even for tested subjects.  

With just five days remaining in our legislative session we have held back any attempt to link teacher appraisal to student performance (scores). Hopefully this will hold until midnight Monday. Some members of the lege wanted it to be as high as 100% but we have been fortunate. Anti-high stakes testing groundswell also helped us in this regard.

Sent via Groupsite Mobile.