After three weeks of interviewing and collecting data from 1,128
students, the following is the summary of our All In SIP goals. While the
data this year leaves room for improvement, there are definitely still areas to
celebrate. Please be sure to read carefully below for the ratings, data
and summary of key points. You can revisit the presentation we shared
earlier in the year with more details here if you would like.
Learner Profile Goal:
By February 2019, the overall percent of students observed at
levels 2 and 3 on the learner profile rubric will increase 30% from February
2018 levels. In February 2018, 56% of students observed were at a level 2
or 3, making the goal for 2019 to have 86% of students observed.
This year, our combined students at level 2 or 3 was 57.4% (This
is an increase from fall of 27.6, but only 1.4 from a year ago at this time).
For a bit more detail, see this table with information about where
our students were last February compared to this February:
Level
|
February 2018
|
February 2019
|
0
|
16%
|
12.4%
|
1
|
28%
|
30.2%
|
2
|
39%
|
39.9%
|
3
|
17%
|
17.5%
|
Based on the rubric we shared earlier this year, the growth we
achieved this year fell in the unsatisfactory
range.
Proficiency Based Progress
Goal:
By February 2019, the overall percent of students observed at
levels 2 and 3 on the
proficiency based observation rubric will increase from September
2018 (15.5%) to February 2019 by a total of 60%.
Based on the rubrics shared earlier this year, in order to reach
proficiency for this goal 66% of our students surveyed in February would have
needed to be in levels 2 and 3.
In February, the combined percentage of students at levels 2 or 3
was 56.9%. Again, based on the rubrics
shared earlier this year this would mean the rating for this goal is Needs Improvement.
For a bit more detail, see this table with information about where
our students were in October compared to February:
The following data is current data compared to fall data (in
parenthesis) of this year:
Level
|
October
|
February
|
0
|
51.8%
|
10.6%
|
1
|
32.7%
|
32.4%
|
2
|
13.1%
|
36.7%
|
3
|
2.4%
|
20.2%
|
Impact for evaluation:
Overall, if any staff member used both All In SIP goals, their 30%
student growth rating is needs improvement for this school year. Because of that, please see the following
tables for the impact on your summative evaluation rating. The first describes how the overall rating of
Needs Improvement for the student
growth component is arrived at.
To determine Student Growth Goal Rating:
Student Growth Goal One (15%)
|
|||||
Student Growth Goal Two (15%)
|
Excellent
4
|
Proficient
3
|
Needs
Improvement
2
|
Unsatisfactory
0
|
|
Excellent
4
|
Excellent
|
Excellent
|
Proficient
|
Needs Improvement
|
|
Proficient
3
|
Excellent
|
Proficient
|
Proficient
|
Needs Improvement
|
|
Needs
Improvement
2
|
Proficient
|
Proficient
|
Needs Improvement
|
Needs Improvement
|
|
Unsatisfactory
0
|
Needs Improvement
|
Needs Improvement
|
Needs Improvement
|
Unsatisfactory
|
This means that the highest overall summative rating a teacher who
used both the Learner Profile and Proficiency Based Progress goals can achieve
is proficient. Please see the chart below to see how your
student growth rating and teacher performance rating interact.
To determine OVERALL SUMMATIVE RATING:
Teacher Performance (70%)
|
|||||
Student Growth (30%)
|
Excellent
4
|
Proficient
3
|
Needs
Improvement
2
|
Unsatisfactory
0
|
|
Excellent
4
|
Excellent
|
Proficient
|
Proficient
|
Needs Improvement
|
|
Proficient
3
|
Excellent
|
Proficient
|
Needs Improvement
|
Unsatisfactory
|
|
Needs
Improvement
2
|
Proficient
|
Proficient
|
Needs Improvement
|
Unsatisfactory
|
|
Unsatisfactory
0
|
Proficient
|
Needs Improvement
|
Needs Improvement
|
Unsatisfactory
|
Obviously, everyone would hope we would have seen more success
with these goals. However, there are definitely some areas to celebrate when
looking at the data more closely.
1. A huge reduction in the number of students
that cannot identify I Can statements! The percent shifted from 51.8% to
10.6%! It is a celebration to consider that only 10% of our students
could not identify I Can statements.
2. We were able to maintain the level 2 and 3
students that know who they are as a learner and use that to advocate for their
learning.
3. Having 20.2% of our students able to link
the feedback they are receiving to the I Can statement and know the next steps
for learning, is a great celebration!
We hope everyone will take a moment to reflect on the data and
consider how we could better embed the learner profile and feedback to guide
proficiency into our classrooms daily.
At all levels, we will be evaluating this information and considering
what the impact on our next steps as a district will be.