Value-Added Teacher Evaluation: Explanations and Implications for Michigan Music Educators

1
Value-Added Teacher Evaluation Explanations and
Implications for Michigan Music Educators

• Colleen Conway, University of Michigan (Session
  Presider)
• Abby Butler, Wayne State University
• Phillip Hash, Calvin College
• Cynthia Taggart, Michigan State University

2
Overview of Michigan LegislationSigned July 19,
2011

• with the involvement of teachers and school
  administrators, the board of a school
  districtshall adopt and implement for all
  teachers and school administrators a rigorous,
  transparent, and fair performance evaluation
  system that does all of the following
• Measures student growth
• Provides relevant data on student growth
• Evaluates a teacher's job performance using
  multiple rating categories that take into account
  data on student growth as a significant factor
  (PA 102, p. 2).

3
Overview of Michigan Legislation(cont.)

• of evaluation related to student growth
• 2013-14 (25) 2014-15 (40) 2015-16 (50)
• All teachers evaluated annually
• Review of lesson plan w/ standards
• Rated as Highly effective, effective, minimally
  effective, ineffective
• Evaluations vs. Seniority in personnel decisions
• National, state, and local assessments allowed

4
MDE Will Provide

• Measures For every educator, regardless of
  subject taught, based on 2009-10 and 2010-11
  data
• Student growth levels in reading and math
• Student proficiency levels in math, reading,
  writing, science, social studies
• Foundational measure of student proficiency and
  improvement (same for each teacher in a school)
• Understanding Michigan's Educator Evaluations,
  MDE (December 2010)
• How will this data be used for arts educators?
• Currently up to school districts
• Might be specified by the state after this year

5
Governors Council on Educator Effectiveness

• By April 30, 2012 submit a report that recommends
  
• a student growth and assessment tool
• State evaluation tools for teachers and
  administrators
• parameters for effectiveness rating categories.
• Subject to leg. approval

6
Recommendations for Music Teachers
7
Recommendations for Music Educators

• Be active within your educational communities
• State level Be involved in developing and
  implementing curricula that state clearly what
  students should know/be able to do.
• District level Work with administration to
  identify and develop objective and valid measures
  of curricular goals before evaluation cycle
  begins.

8
Learn as much as you can about assessment

• Use a variety of assessments that are valid for
  measuring growth and achievement in order to
  paint a rich picture of each student musically
• Consult colleagues and experts for assistance as
  needed

9
Adjust your teaching practice to embrace
assessment

• Make assessment a naturalistic, regular part of
  nearly every class period.
• Include opportunities for individual response.

10
Assessment

• Abby Butler
• Wayne State University

11
Evidence of Effective Teaching
Activity Evidence
Planning Preparation Lesson plans Instructor created Props, teaching materials Assessment tools Curriculum
Teaching Observations of actual teaching (live or recorded) Student input (survey) Self-analysis
Assessing Variety and quality of teacher developed assessment tools Measures of student growth
12
Measures of Student Growth

• What aspects of student learning do you want to
  measure?
• Consult the Michigan Merit Curriculum, available
  online at MDOE.
• Choose criteria that provides a balanced picture
  of what your students are learning
• Skills
• Knowledge
• Understanding

13
Types of Assessment

• Written Assessments
• Quizzes/tests
• Worksheets
• Written reports, papers, reviews, critiques,
  essays
• Performance Tests
• Based on some form of student music making
• Performance tests used to evaluate a specific
  task
• Choices depend on outcomes to be assessed and
  age/grade of students

14
Measuring Skills

• Skills

• Appropriate Assessments

• Singing
• Playing instruments
• Moving
• Listening
• Composing, Improvising, Arranging
• Notating (perform, read, write -PRW)

• Checklists
• Rating scale
• Rubrics
• Worksheets
• Portfolios

15
Measuring Knowledge

• Types of Knowledge

• Appropriate Assessments

• Factual
• Terminology
• Symbols (notation)
• Instruments
• Genres
• Procedural (How to)
• Assemble an instrument
• Build a major scale
• Perform a concert

• Quizzes or tests (written)
• Worksheets
• Diagrams or graphic organizers (i.e. flow charts,
  concept maps, Venn chart)

16
Assessing Understanding

• Understanding

• Assessment Tools

• Concepts
• Principles
• Big Picture

• Questioning (divergent)
• Problem solving activities
• Projects

17
Evidence of Growth

• Baseline data for comparison
• Possible sources
• Teacher developed pre-test
• Teacher developed grade level assessments
• Assessments included in textbook series
• Purchased tests (i.e. Gordons PMMA, Iowa Test
  for Music Literacy)

18
Scheduling Assessments

• Consult with your principal to determine a
  schedule for assessments
• Consider the following
• Number, length, and type of assessments
• School calendar performance events
• Who will administer assessments
• Which grades, classes, or students will be
  assessed

19
Documenting Recording the Evidence

• How will you document the evidence?
• Will results be quantitative or qualitative?
• If you use rubrics, checklists, or rating scales,
  how will they be scored?
• Where will this information be recorded?
• School computer, iPad, Smartboard?
• Software program, i.e. Excel?

20
Interpreting Results

• Adequate and consistent data
• Baseline for comparison
• Consideration of mediating factors
• Consult experts as needed

21
Festival Ratings
22
Festival Ratings Possibilities

• Provide quantitative third party assessment
• Can show growth over time in some circumstances
• Individual judges ratings
• Repertoire difficulty
• 3 yr. period
• Valid to the extent that they measure the quality
  of an ensembles performance of three selected
  pieces sight reading at one point in time
• Probably adaptable to state-wide evaluation tool
• Assess a few performance standards

23
Festival Ratings Concerns

• Group assessment only
• Ratings alone not sufficient
• Limited assessment of growth
• Reliability not established
• Consistency of adjudication b/w years, districts,
  sites, judges?
• Numerous factors influence reliability next
  slide
• What is the role of festival and music
  organizations?

24
Factors Influencing Contest Ratings/Inter Rater
Reliability

• Adj. experience (e.g., Brakel, 2006)
• Familiarity w/ repertoire (e.g., Kinney, 2009)
• Adjudication form (e.g., Norris Borst, 2007)
• Length of contest day (e.g., Barnes McCashin,
  2005)
• Performance Time (e.g., Bergee McWhirter, 2007)
• Size of judging panel (e.g., Bergee, 2007)
• Difficulty of repertoire (e.g., Baker, 2004)

• Size of Ensemble (e.g., Killian, 1998, 1999,
  2000)
• Adjudicator Bias
• Special circumstances (Cassidy Sims, 1991)
• Conductor race (VanWeelden McGee, 2007)
• Conductor Expressivity (Morrison, Price, Geiger,
  Cornacchio, 2009)
• Ensemble Label (Silvey, 2009)
• Grade Inflation (Boeckman, 2002)
• Event type
• Concert performance vs. sight-reading (Hash, in
  press)

25
Ratings ? MEAP or MME Exams

• MEAP MME
• Same for all each yr.
• Rel. and val. established
• Many Standards
• Individual
• Mostly objective
• Reflect multiple levels of achievement

• Ratings
• Rep., adj., students change
• Rel. not est.
• Per. standards only
• Group
• Mostly subjective
• 90 earn I or II out of V ratings.

26
Recommendations

• Use of ratings voluntary
• Organizations work to establish reliability and
  validity as for any other standardized measure
• Organizations provide basic norms
• Average rating for each classification
• Frequency counts for all ratings in all
  classifications
• All music education organizations work together
  to establish reliable, valid, fair assessment of
  music K-12 learning

27
Questions/Comments?