At the beginning of the school year in an F school, a colleague teacher of mine told me that she did not want to teach the students that achieved a lower average grade because she did not want to receive a bad teacher performance evaluation score. Indeed, her students’ average grade was at the lower end of the grading spectrum. She was mad because the administrators assigned me 18 high achiever students with a reading average grade of 83%, whereas her class reading average grade was 35%, based on the District 1^{st} grade previous year’s test.
To my surprise, at the end of the year she achieved a highly effective performance score on her evaluation, whereas I got a rating of “unsatisfactory performance.” That was a contradiction that we could not understand, and so we decided to ask an administrator about this discrepancy. The administrator gave us the following explanation based on student growth.
He indicated that student growth was the key to determine teacher performance. The school used the Florida Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), which reflect the expected growth that each schoolteacher should achieve at the end of the year according to the state. The administrator said that the expected school AMOs for the current school year was as follows: (a) for Reading, the state expected that our students increase 4 points and (b) for mathematics, the expectation was a 3point increase. Table 1 data was also provided by the school administrator. He said that both of us were teaching 18, 2^{nd} grade reading and mathematics students. For confidentiality, we will use the following classification to identify the teachers: (a) “LGT” for the lower grade teacher and (b) “HGT” for the higher grade teacher.
Table 1: Student Growth
Data
Previous
Year’s District Score 20122013

Expected
State AMOs
20132014

Expected
EndofYear Score 20132014

Actual
Endofyear Score
20132014


Teacher

Reading

Math

Reading

Math

Reading

Math

Reading

Math

LGT

35

37

4

3

39

40

51

53

HGT

83

86

4

3

87

89

84

86

The expected growth was calculated for each teacher using the following mathematical expression: Expected endoftheyear growth = (Previous year’s score in a district test + Expected school annual measurable objective). Then at the end of the year when the students were graded on the endoftheyear district test, the resulting score was compared with the expected endofyear score.
Based on Table 1, using both subject scores, the LGT students obtained a 52% average score, whereas the students of the HGT students achieved 85%.The score of the students reveal that the HGT has the high achiever score. However, the endoftheyear score for 20132014 indicates that the LGT showed higher student academic growth—in fact, better than expected endoftheyear scores in both subjects. The HGT did not achieve the expected scores for either subject.
Consequently, the LGT showed better teaching performance and maximum student learning growth that was above expectations. Therefore, using Table 2, the LGT is highly effective based on student growth, not based on student average scores.
The administrator used the following table to determine the performance of both teachers.
In the mathematical equations, “P” = Previous, “S” = State Expectations, and “E” = End of the year.
Table 2 Educators Performance: AMOs Model Relationship
Rating

Score

Performance Level

Above State Expectation

Mathematical Relationship
For Endofyear

4

4
 Highly Effective 
Y
 E ≥ S + 1.01 
3

3
 Effective 
Y
 E ≥ S < S + 1.00 
3

3
 Effective 
N
 E ≥ (S) 1 
2

2
 Needs Improvement 
N
 E ≤ S 1.01 And E ≤ S 2 
2

2
 Developing (3 years or less experience) 
N
 E ≤ S 1.01 And E ≤ S 2 
1

1
 Unsatisfactory 
N
 E ≤ S – 2.1 
Annual Measurable Objectives Model
The Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOS) method can improve the alignment between state yearly student learning growth expectations, state standards, state assessments, and classroom instruction, while promoting the professional growth of teachers and standardsbased instruction. Aligning teacher performance with state expected growth will help achieve state expectations according to NCLB Act (2001).
Student growth is a positive change in a student’s or group of students’ knowledge or skills, as evidenced by a learning gain from one year to the next by comparing two years of assessment data. It is the relationship between two student assessments at different points in time. The measurement model is the process in which two developmental assessment scores of a student are compared to identify a change in a student’s knowledge or skills over time.
The developmental test measures the knowledge that students could learn at a certain specific developmental age. The developmental knowledge is aligned with the content standards specific to the state or the district. This is the rationale used to compare the results of the two tests during two developmental ages of the students.
This model takes the mean from the final students’ assessment of the previous year and adds it to the students’ expected state target growth expectation. The school growth expectation comes from the target Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) or AYP of the state or district learning growth goal.
Baez, R. H. (2014). Coach One evaluation system. Point to check data.
No comments:
Post a Comment