Student Learning Outcomes: DRAFT Guidance
Step 3: Select multiple measures of student learning to be included in evaluations
Once districts have determined how student
learning is currently being measured, districts may select the
assessments and other evidence of student learning that they
currently use and are appropriate as multiple measures in educator
evaluation. Additionally, districts may use the
CDE Resource Bank
and district/vendor-created assessments to address assessment gaps.*
In collaboration with
teachers, principals and associations where applicable, districts will need to
develop processes for how to select the multiple measures
that will be used in their evaluations.
* When selecting measures to fill gaps, districts should consider how the measures support teachers in improving instruction and are aligned to the standards that are being taught.
- Categorizing teachers based on types of available assessments/measures
- Tools/resources for completing Step 3
- Select assessments based on the required components for attributing student learning outcomes
- Using statewide summative data for evaluation purposes
- Using multiple years of student growth to determine educator effectiveness
- Determining individual and collective attribution
Categorizing teachers based on types of available
In reviewing the
requirements for assigning student learning outcomes to educators,
it is clear that many teachers will not have all the assessments
listed in the requirements. Because assessments are more available
for certain groups of teachers then they are for others, it is
useful for districts to categorize teachers into groups based on the
types of assessment data available. Below is an example of how
teachers can be categorized based on teaching assignment and data
also the State Council for Educator Effectiveness' Student Growth
Work Group report).
State Summative Data Teachers
CGM and State Summative Data Teacher
No State Summative Data Teacher
|Teachers who have statewide summative assessment data available||Teachers who have Colorado Growth Model data and statewide summative data||Teachers who do not have statewide summative assessments in their content area|
|3rd- 10th grade teachers, in select subjects||Teachers who instruct in select core content areas||Any teachers that teach a subject or grade level that is not a part of the statewide summative assessments|
Districts may increase comparability among teachers by categorizing them based on the types of assessment data that is available for use in educator evaluation.
Tools/resources for completing Step 3
CDE Resource Bank:
The first items in the CDE Resource Bank are assessments which will
provide districts with a starting point in understanding student
learning and may be used for educator effectiveness purposes.
• Assessment Review Tool:
The Assessment Review Tool is designed to help Colorado educators
rate an assessment’s potential for measuring student academic growth
aligned to the Colorado Academic Standards. The collaborative use of
this tool is one way that districts and BOCES can include teachers
in a discussion regarding the assessment measures used in their
performance evaluations. Proper use of the Assessment Review Tool
requires thorough documentation of the rating for each assessment
and, in turn, will build confidence and support in using the
assessments for evaluation purposes. Use of the Assessment Review
Tool is a first step in ensuring that measurements of student
academic growth are fair, valid and reliable. Users will need to use
Microsoft Excel or a compatible program to access and use the tool.
Select assessments based on the required
components for attributing student learning outcomes
identify many assessments that may be used in educator evaluation.
Districts are advised to keep the assessment selection process
simple by selecting the assessments that will have the greatest
impact on student learning and are the most appropriate for
measuring student learning impacted by an educator.
Using statewide summative data for evaluation
summative data is available, use it as one of the multiple measures
to inform student learning outcome ratings. Statewide summative data
can be applied to teachers in either an individual or collective
attribution. This data will be available in three forms:
State summative data, such as the Median Growth Percentile (MGP) from the Colorado Growth Model (CGM)
- 4th - 10th grade reading, writing, math
- 1st - 12th grade English language proficiency growth
State summative data, such as a proficiency score
- 3rd grade reading and math, and 5th, 8th, 10th grade science
- Social studies will be added to the state summative system in 2013-14
Data from the School Performance Framework
Districts decide how these measures will be included in the multiple measures selected for determining a student learning outcomes score for the teacher evaluation. Districts need to consider the timing of data release and options in how this data can be used in a timely manner. For example, current year state summative data may not be available before the end of the school year. However, since it is required that this data be a part of teacher evaluations, it is suggested that prior year statewide summative data be used in current year calculations.
Using multiple years of student growth to
determine educator effectiveness
shown that student growth outcomes can vary widely from year to year
even in classrooms of highly effective teachers. In order to soften
the effect of this student growth variance, districts are encouraged
to allow a combining of student growth over multiple (typically
three) years. In this way, student learning outcomes become more
consistent over time resulting in more fair and reliable educator
Determining individual and collective attribution
evaluation rules require that a teacher’s student learning outcome
rating includes both an individual attribution (individual impact)
and a collective attribution (a learning outcome that is shared with
other educators that contribute to the learning that is evidenced).
There are three main considerations that teachers and administrators
should keep in mind when deciding upon measures to use for the
collective attribution component.
Use scores that reflect small team or partnership efforts to enhance validity.
Include multiple measures as evidence of the educator’s instructional responsibilities. Be aware that “double-dipping” of measures, for example, counting math TCAP as a collective grade level measure and then counting it again as an individually-attributed measure could result in a higher percent of math TCAP than is actually desired.
Create partnerships or teams where teachers have an opportunity to impact growth.