IHE Institute Leaders with Leaders session presentation with updated information on educator effectiveness.

1. Leaders with Leaders
2012 Common Core State and North Carolina
Essential Standards IHE Institutes
Rachel McBroom, Robert Sox, and Eliz Colbert

2. Overview
The central focus of READY is by enabling and ensuring
improving student learning ... great teaching.

3. Getting to READY through RttT

4. Quick Tour of Resources

5. Quick Tour of the IHE Wiki
http://ihe.ncdpi.wikispaces.net

6. Quick Tour of the NCDPI PD Calendar
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/profdev/calendar/

7. Regional Professional Development
Leaders
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/profdev/directory/

8. Quick Tour of NCDPI WikiCentral
http://wikicentral.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/NC
DPI+WikiCentral+Page

9. Quick Tour of NC Education
https://center.ncsu.edu/nc/

10. 2012-2013 Professional Development Plan
2012 2013
June
May
Sept
Aug
Nov
July
Mar
Dec
Apr
Feb
Oct
Jan
 Common Core State and NC Essential Standards PD 
~96 sessions
 Information and Technology Essential Standards PD 
~24 sessions
 Fidelity Support PD 
8 sessions 8 sessions
 NC Educator Evaluation System PD   ACT or PLAN PD 
 Creating the 21st Century Classroom PD   AIG-Focused PD 
 EVAAS PD 
+90 optional sessions

11. Online Modules and Webinars
Available since 6/2011
►Modules available at http://center.ncsu.edu/nc/
• Call for Change: An Overview of Common Core and Essential Standards
• Developing Local Curricula
• NC Professional Teaching Standards
• Understanding the Standards
• Understanding Student Behavior I
• Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
• NC Falcon (Formative Assessment)
►Webinars available at
www.ncpublicschools.org/acre/profdev/webinars/

12. Online Modules and Webinars
Available 6/2012
►Modules available at http://center.ncsu.edu/nc/
• NC School Executives Standards
• Digital Literacies in the K-12 Classroom
• Introduction to Data Literacy
• Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects
• Understanding PreK-6 Student Behavior in the Classroom
• Connecting with our 21st Century Learners
• NC Falcon Student Ownership Module
• Educator Evaluation System Tutorial
• North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Module
Implementation Guide available at
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/acre/profdev/webinars/

14. State Board of Education Mission
Every public school student
will graduate from high
school, globally competitive
for work and postsecondary
education and prepared for
life in the 21st Century.
-Adopted August 2006

16. 21st Century Skills:
What’s the big deal?
• Describe what 21st Century Skills means to
you in 20 characters or less at
http://answergarden.ch/view/38689
• P21 Above & Beyond

17. 21st Century Outcomes

18. Behaviors

19. Campus Reflection

20. NC Professional Teaching Standards

21. Conceptualize the Standards
• Review and discuss the standard assigned to your group.
• On chart paper, conceptualize the standard in a creative way. For
example, you might create a visual, a song, a poem, a “tweet,” a text
message, or any other “right-brain” conceptualization of the standard.

23. The Rubric

24. Ratings for Pre-Service Candidates
• Demonstrated exemplary
understanding, mastery, and
Accomplished consistent integration of
educational concepts and skills.
• Demonstrated the ability to apply
Proficient educational concepts consistently
in real-world contexts
• Demonstrated the ability to apply
Developing educational concepts to concrete
problems within limited contexts
• Demonstrated limited or superficial
Emerging knowledge and awareness of
educational concepts

25. Ratings for In-Service Teacher Standards
• Consistently and significantly
Distinguished exceeded basic competence
• Exceeded basic competence most
Accomplished of the time
Proficient • Demonstrated basic competence
• Demonstrated adequate growth
Developing toward achieving standards, but did
not demonstrate basic competence

26. The Rubric

27. Distinguished
• http://find-how.com/Cake-recipe.html
Accomplished
• http://www.shoveitinyourface.com/2011/02/chocolate-and-golden-vanilla-triple.htm
Proficient
• http://ellie-sparks.livejournal.com/3021.html
Developing
• http://ellie-sparks.livejournal.com/3021.html
Emerging
• http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/14/article-2114842-11740992000005DC-179_468x351.jpg

28. What do the ratings look like?

30. Alignment of Teacher Candidate Rubric
and In-service Teacher Rubric
• In your group, read and discuss the descriptors on the
cards in the envelope.
– For each descriptor decide whether it belongs on the
candidate rubric or teacher rubric.
– Arrange the descriptors in order of increasing
performance level for each rubric.
– Align the candidate descriptors with the teacher
descriptors that most closely match. Don’t just match
words, focus on the behaviors being described.

34. What is your campus doing to ensure
rating with fidelity?

35. LEA/IHE Certification of Teaching
Capacity (CTC)
• Based on NC Professional Teaching Standards.
• Met = Proficient level or higher; Not met = lower than
proficient
• To be recommended for licensure, candidates must
meet all descriptors on the CTC.
• Signed by candidate, cooperating teacher(s), principal
(or designee), & University Supervisor

36. To be recommended for a SP I license, a
candidate must be proficient in All
descriptors of All elements of All standards

37. At the end of the
3rd year,
beginning
teachers must
receive ratings
of proficient or
higher on all
standards in
order to receive
a SP II license.

38. Educator Effectiveness

39. Agenda
• Setting the Context
What do we need?
• Educator Effectiveness Policies
• Common Exams
• Review of Resources
http://wikicentral.ncdpi.wikispaces.net
12/18/2012 • page 39

40. Setting the Context
12/18/2012 • page 40

41. Why educator effectiveness?
NC is implementing a new curriculum, new assessments, new
technology tools to improve instruction, new ways of engaging
students, and the list goes on…
So why is the State focusing on educator
effectiveness in the face of so many other
changes?
Because all our efforts in other areas depend on an effective
teacher in every classroom and an effective leader in every school
building.

42. Why educator effectiveness?
The work around educator effectiveness, including the Measures of
Student Learning, is grounded in the belief that:
Every student in North Carolina deserves an
effective teacher in all courses and grades.
Our students need to learn all of the standards in the North
Carolina Standard Course of Study in order to be READY for their
futures.

43. Why educator effectiveness?
In order to increase their effectiveness, teachers need access to
high-quality data.
Every teacher in North Carolina deserves
feedback on the growth of their students.
It’s not about firing our way to a better teaching force. It’s about
creating a system that:
• Identifies the strongest teachers so that we can all learn
from them, and
• Identifies those teachers who need additional support
and targets that support to their needs

44. Educator Effectiveness
Policies

45. Re-creation of chart from Gathering Feedback For Teaching, http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Practioner_Brief.pdf
Observation + Other Measures
Rationale - MET Research - Standard 6 & 8 - Status - Support - MSLs
▲
Months of Learning Gained or Lost
State Math State ELA
Observation Tool Top 25% +1.2 +.2
Bottom 25% -1.4 -.4
Observation Tool Top 25% +2.8 +.7
+ Student Survey
Bottom 25% -2 -.9
Observation Tool Top 25% +4.5 +1.2
+ Student Survey
+ Growth (Value-Add) Bottom 25% -3.1 -1.3

46. Standards 6 & 8 – The Basics
Teachers
1 2 3 4 5 6
Demonstrate Establish
Leadership Environment
Know
Content
Facilitate
Learning
Reflect on Contribute
Practice to Academic
Success
Principals (and other Administrators)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Strategic Instructional Cultural Human Managerial External Micro- Academic
Leadership Leadership Leadership Resource Leadership Development political Achievement
Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership
12/18/2012 • page 46

47. Growth Model
Teachers
Standard 6 and 8
6
Contribute
to Academic
Success are measures of
Principals
Growth
8
Academic
Academic
Achievement
Achievement
Leadership
Leadership
12/18/2012 • page 47

48. Growth Model
Teachers
We will use
6
Contribute
to Academic
Success
Educator Value-Added
Principals Assessment System
EVAAS
8
Academic
Academic
Achievement
Achievement
Leadership
Leadership for standards 6 & 8 when possible
12/18/2012 • page 48

49. Determining Growth
TCP-C-006 now provides clarity around which
What do we need?
assessments are used to measure growth
End-of-Grade
Assessments
CTE Post- Teacher
Assessments Growth Value
EVAAS for Sixth
Common Standard
Exams Rating
End-of-Course
Assessments
12/18/2012 • page 49

50. Ratings
Teachers
6
Contribute
to Academic
Success
How will the ratings on
Principals Standards 6 & 8 work?
8
Academic
Academic
Achievement
Achievement
Leadership
Leadership
12/18/2012 • page 50

51. Teacher Ratings Categories
▲
Teachers
1 2 3 4 5 6
Demonstrate Establish Know Facilitate Reflect on Contribute
Leadership Environment Content Learning Practice to Academic
Success
5 Rating Categories 3 Rating Categories
Not Demonstrated Does not Meet Expected Growth
Developing Meets Expected Growth
Proficient Exceeds Expected Growth
Accomplished
Distinguished
12/18/2012 • page 51

52. Ratings
Teachers
1 2 3 4 5 6
Demonstrate Establish Know Facilitate Reflect on Contribute
Leadership Environment Content Learning Practice to Academic
Success
5 Rating Categories 3 Ratings Categories
Why the difference?
Identifying only three rating categories on standard 6
& 8 improves certainty of categorization.

53. Teacher Ratings in 2011-12
Yearly Rating
Teacher
EVAAS Growth
70%
School-wide
EVAAS Growth
30%
• Does not Meet
Expected Growth
6
• Meets Expected Growth
• Exceeds Expected Growth
Weighted Average
Why is school-wide EVAAS growth included?
• To encourage collaboration and collective
ownership of overall outcomes.
Note: In 2011-12, teachers without individual EVAAS
growth will have school-wide growth for Standard 6.

54. Teacher Ratings in 2012-13
The first year that Standard Six “counts” for a teacher is
2012 – 2013 (if the growth data is specific to the teacher
and the students)
Possible additional
Yearly Rating
6
elements
Teacher School-wide Team Student • Does not
EVAAS EVAAS EVAAS Expected Growth
Surveys
Growth Growth Growth (?) (?) • Meets Expected Growth
• Exceeds Expected Growth
Weighted Average
12/18/2012 • page 54

55. Ratings
Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6
Demonstrate
Leadership
Establish
Environment
Know
Content
Facilitate
Learning
Reflect on
Practice
Contribute
to Academic
Success
Principals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Strategic Instructional Cultural Human Managerial External Micro- Academic
Leadership Leadership Leadership Resource Leadership Development political Achievement
Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership
Key Note on Ratings
• Every educator is evaluated every year
• Each standard and rating stands on its own
(1 out of 6, not 1/6)
• Ratings are used to create professional development plans each year
• Ratings are used to determine status

56. Status
What is the difference
between Ratings and
Status?
12/18/2012 • page 56

57. Status
Ratings Status
• Teachers • A single overall status that
6 separate ratings to help is determined once a
teachers grow each year principal or teacher has
three years of growth
• Principals data to populate 6 or 8
8 separate ratings to help
principals grow each year • Categories for Status
1. In Need of Improvement
2. Effective
3. Highly Effective
12/18/2012 • page 57

58. 3-Year Rolling Average
Rating from Rating from Rating from
2012 - 2013 2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015
1.9 + -2.5 + 1.2
Standard Standard Standard
6 6 6 Contribute
to Academic
Success
3
= .2
1.9 -2.5 1.2 Met Expected Growth
Met Did not meet Met 3- year average rating on
Expected Expected Expected standard 6 for
Growth Growth Growth
determining status
Note: A similar methodology applies to principals as well.
Note: The values above represent values from the MRM model in EVAAS.
12/18/2012 • page 58

59. Three Years of Data
Any three years of data attributable to a teacher or
principal will be combined and used:
• Any grades
• Any subjects
• Any schools
• Any districts
The three years of data do not start until they are
specific to that teacher and his or her students
12/18/2012 • page 59

60. Status
So once a educator has a
three-year average rating
for Standard 6 or 8, how
is status determined?
12/18/2012 • page 60

61. Status
• The Three Status Categories are
1. In Need of Improvement
2. Effective
3. Highly Effective
12/18/2012 • page 61

62. Teacher Status
In Need of Highly
Effective
Improvement Effective
Standards 1-5 Any rating Proficient Accomplished
In the year lower than or Higher or Higher
on Standards on Standards
proficient
1 2 3 4 5
Demonstrate Establish
Leadership Environment
Know
Content
Facilitate
Learning
Reflect on
Practice
1-5 1-5
And/Or And And
Standard 6 Does Not Meets or Exceeds
Three-year rolling average Meet Exceeds Expected
) Expected Expected Growth
6
2 years
ago 6
+ 1ago +
year
6
This
year )/ 3 Growth Growth

66. Detail on
the Sixth
Standard
Rating

67. Common Exams

68. Common Exams
A Library of Common Exams
is being designed for non-tested
subjects for district use to populate
Standard 6
12/18/2012 • page 68

69. Focusing on the “Why”
So why have statewide Measures of Student
Learning/Common Exams?
1. North Carolina has a statewide evaluation system to ensure
that every teacher receives a fair and consistent evaluation,
regardless of his or her employing LEA
2. Teachers in all content areas should receive a Standard Six
rating based on the growth of their own students on their
content-specific standards
3. Most LEAs do not have the capacity to design their own
assessments for all non state-tested grades and subjects
12/18/2012 • page 69

70. District Flexibility
• Administration online, paper/pencil or hybrid
• Date of administration
• Administration during class period or testing week
• Use in student grade
• Which assessments are administered
• How to ensure secure administration
12/18/2012 • page 70

71. Addressing Concerns
Who has designed the Common Exams, and how
have they been designed?
•Same basic process as state assessments with the creation
of assessment blueprints, generation of items, review of
items, review of forms, and final production
•Over 800 teachers from across the State have involved in
the blueprint creation and form review processes
•NCDPI psychometricians and test measurement specialists
have been involved and will analyze (and remove from
results) any poor-performing items before growth is
calculated
12/18/2012 • page 71

72. Addressing Concerns
Why doesn’t anyone know what will be on the
MSLs?
•Assessment specifications are available at:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/educatoreffect/measures/spe
cifications/
•Online module will provide training on how to use rubrics to
score performance tasks
12/18/2012 • page 72

73. Reviewing the Resources
12/18/2012 • page 73

74. Reviewing the Resources
• Implementation Guide
• Administration Timelines
• Assessment Specifications
• Guide to Measuring Student Growth
• Local Planning Template
• Educator Effectiveness Website
12/18/2012 • page 74

75. Information
General Information:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/educatoreffect/
State Board of Education:
http://stateboard.ncpublicschools.gov/
Sample EOC/EOG Items:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing/releasedforms
Race to the Top Weekly Update:
Send email to michael.yarbrough@dpi.nc.gov to sign up
Email Questions:
educatoreffectiveness@dpi.nc.gov
12/18/2012 • page 75

77. The IHE Link
• NC Teacher Quality
Research
• IHE Education
Preparation Report
Cards

78. NCCTQ Teacher Preparation
Research & Policy Brief
http://www.tqsource.org/publications/TQ_RandP_BriefEvaluatingEffectiveness.pdf

79. AFT & CCSSO Reports
• http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/raisingthebar2012.pdf
• Our Responsibility, Our Promise – CCSSO’s Task Force
Report on Educator Preparation and Entry into the
Profession – Released December 17th

80. IHE Report Card

81. NC RttT Application
Design of IHE report cards that include various data
elements, including a measure of how the program
graduates impact student learning.
Creation of report cards for teacher and principal
preparation programs at NC colleges and universities,
as well as alternative licensure pathways, such as
Teach For America.

82. Intended Uses
Teacher and principal preparation programs
•Continuous improvement
•Self-reflection
Local education agencies
•Hiring decisions
•School-university partnerships
Members of the public
Future teacher/principal education candidates
State Board of Education
Possible use of report cards in program approval

83. Guiding Principles
Alisa Chapman and David Cooper of the
Governor’s Education Transformation
Commission prepared a set of guiding principles
for the IHE report card design.
Principles include recommended data elements
and data collection processes.

84. Basic Structure
North Carolina Institution of Higher Education Teacher Preparation Program Report Card
Sample University
401 South Sample Street Dean Julia K. Sample
Greensboro, NC 26490 http://www.sample/edu/teaching
Left Side: Data about
Students Faculty
Number of Full-Time Students Enrolled in Program: Number of Teacher Education Faculty Appointed Full-
1,401 Time in Professional Education: 70
Number of Full-Time Students Pursuing Licensure Only: Number of Teacher Education Faculty Appointed Part-
800 Time in Professional Education while Full-Time
Number of Part-Time Students Enrolled in Program: 50 Overall at Institution: 60
Number of Part-Time Students Pursuing Licensure Only: Number of Teacher Education Faculty Appointed Part-
15 Time in Professional Education: 75
Number Pursuing Lateral-Entry through Program of __________________________________________________________
Study:10
teacher/principal
Number Enrolled in Courses Leading to Lateral-Entry
Public School Partnerships
License: 5 Districts in Formal Partnership with the Teacher
Mean SAT Score of Admitted Students: 1050 Preparation Program: 10
Mean ACT Score of Admitted Students: 25 •Guilford Count y Schools
Mean GPA of Admitted Students: 3.0 •Wake County Public Schools System
•Durham Public Schools
___________________________________________________________
•Harnett County Schools
Transition to the Classroom •Vance County Schools
Average Number of Semesters from Program Acceptance •Halifax County Schools
to Completion •Warren County Schools
education candidates
•Full-Time Students Enrolled in Program: 5 •Hoke County Schools
•Full-Time Students Pursuing Licensure Only: 8 •Anson County Schools
•Part-Time Students Enrolled in Program: 10 •Haywood County Schools
•Part-Time Students Pursuing Licensure Only: 7 Number of Vacancies Reported in Region:
Average Passage Rate for Teacher Licensure Exams: 97% 5 Elementary Science 10 Elementary EC
Number of Student Teachers: 400 9 Secondary ELA 11 Secondary Science
Percentage of formally admitted students to program Licensure Areas of Graduates (last three years):
completers within 3 years: 88% 25% Elementary Education
Percentage of Program Completers Licensed within One 50% Secondary Science
Year of Program Completion: 95% 25% Secondary Social Studies
Percentage of Program Completers Employed within One __________________________________________________________
Year of Program Completion: 95%
___________________________________________________________
Accreditation of Teacher Preparation
Program
Effectiveness of Program Graduates National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
The following reflect the effectiveness of graduates from Preparation, 2010
this teacher preparation program from the last three Teacher Education Accreditation Council, 2009
years (2008 – present). Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation,
Standard One: Teachers demonstrate leadership. 2010
Percent “Not Demonstrated:” 3% Percent “Developing:” 5%
Right Side: Data
Percent “Proficient:” 28% Percent “Accomplished:” 25%
__________________________________________________________
Percent “Distinguished:” 39% Program Areas and Levels Offered
Standard Two: Teachers establish a respectful Art (K-12), BS; Biology, Secondary Education, BS;
environment for a diverse population of students. Business Education, Secondary Education, BS, with
Percent “Not Demonstrated:” 3% Percent “Developing:” 5% concentrations in Business Education and
Percent “Proficient:” 28% Percent “Accomplished:” 25% Business/Marketing Education; Chemistry, Secondary
Percent “Distinguished:” 39% Education, BS; Child Development: B-K,
Standard Three: Teachers know the content they teach. BS, MA; Communication Disorders (K-12), MA;
Percent “Not Demonstrated:” 3% Percent “Developing:” 5%
Counseling and Guidance (School Counseling)
Percent “Proficient:” 28% Percent “Accomplished:” 25%
about program
Percent “Distinguished:” 39%
with concentrations in Elementary/Middle School
Standard Four: Teachers facilitate learning for their Licensure and Secondary School Licensure,
students. MA; Curriculum Specialist, MA; Educational
Percent “Not Demonstrated:” 3% Percent “Developing:” 5% Administration, EdS.
Percent “Proficient:” 28% Percent “Accomplished:” 25% _________________________________________________
Percent “Distinguished:” 39% Highlight of Teacher Preparation Program
Standard Five: Teachers reflect on their practice. Goal:
Percent “Not Demonstrated:” 3% Percent “Developing:” 5%
Percent “Proficient:” 28% Percent “Accomplished:” 25%
Sample University strives to prepare teachers to engage
Percent “Distinguished:” 39% in the emerging global economy.
Standard Six: Teachers contribute to the academic success Progress Toward Goal:
of students. 75% of Sample University’s teacher education program
Percent “Lower than Expected Growth:” 15% graduates are multi-lingual and able to work with
Percent “Expected Growth:” 70% diverse learners.
Percent “Higher than Expected Growth:” 15%
Mean Value-Added Score for Graduates: 1.2

85. Data Examples - Candidates
1. Mean GPA of admitted students
2. Percentage of program completers licensed
within one year of program completion
3. Percentage of formally admitted students to
program completers within 3 years
4. Evaluation data for past three years of
program graduates

86. Data Examples - Program
1. Number of teacher education faculty
appointed full-time in professional education
2. Districts in formal partnership with the
teacher/principal preparation program
3. Program accreditation
4. Program-provided goal and progress toward
goal

88. Thank you & for more information
contact…
Eliz Colbert, Ed.D.
eliz.colbert@dpi.nc.gov
Rachel A. McBroom, Ph.D.
rachel.mcbroom@dpi.nc.gov
Robert Sox
robert.sox@dpi.nc.gov

89. Digital Disclaimer
The digital tools used during the course of this training
have been helpful to some educators across the
state. However, due to the rapidly changing digital
environment, NCDPI does not represent nor endorse that
these tools are the exclusive digital tools for the purposes
outlined during this session.