Presented by Julie Mathiesen, TIE Deputy Director
Please remember to sign in each session
Morning and Afternoon
Signup sheets will be at back table
September 25-26, 2008
November 12-13, 2008
February 9-10, 2009
April 1-2, 2009




September: Getting Started/Descriptive
Feedback/Planning for November, February, April
November: Standard Setting (based on district
feedback)
February: Mock peer review using protocol and
descriptive feedback/work time
April?
• Fremont School District #1
• Wyoming Assessment Consortium
• Technology in Innovation for
Education (TIE)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mark Taylor: Afton
Betsy Sell: Cody
Dave Treick: Cody
Teresa Chaulk: Diamondville
John Metcalfe: Lander
R.J. Kost: Powell
Ray Bieber: Powell
Teri Turner: Shoshoni
Alex Ayers: Gillette/Wright
• Alan Moore
• Kim Ferguson
• Jim Staab
http://www.k12.wy.us/SAA/BOE.asp
September 27
8:30 am
Noon
1:00 pm
3:30 pm
Welcome
BOE Update/Review Process/Submission
Guidelines
District Work Time
Lunch (Provided on-site)
District Work Time
Closure/Homework
September 26
8:30 am
11:30
12:30 pm
2:30 pm
Welcome
Descriptive Feedback
District Work time
Lunch (Provided on-site)
District Work time
November planning/closure
•
To keep districts up-to-date on changes to the submissions guidelines for
the April 2009 state peer review.
•
To have collaboration time with multiple school districts across the State
of Wyoming.
•
To have uninterrupted work time in order to complete the Body of
Evidence plan prior to the April 2009 submission date.
•
To participate in a mock peer review prior to the April 2009 submission
date.
Binders/Materials
• October 1 (Updates Posted)
Websites
• http://boe.tie2.wikispaces.net/
• http://www.k12.wy.us/SAA/BOE.asp
Getting Started
• The philosophy at the heart of the Wyoming Body of
Evidence system is to provide multiple measures to assess
student mastery of the content standards; in this way, no
single assessment can disqualify a student from graduation.
• History of BOE
• Nation at Risk (1983)
• Wyoming Responds
• 1990 – continued local control
• October 1998 – state standards in place
• 2000-2003 BOE becomes statute in law
• 2007 – revived
• An individual district may determine student
mastery of the standards through a variety of
means as decided by that district, for example,
district assessments, state assessments, and
successful completion of courses with passing
grades.
• 9-12 component to make it successful you need
to think about K-12 assessment system.
• General Structure
• Overview Section
• These two sections are NOT reviewed
but they might help the reviewer’s
(attitude) about your plan. (First
impression)
Suggestions:
• Describe it; Show the evidence!
• Present in an easy, understandable manner!
• Not looking for quantity looking for quality.
• Not a rating scale: you either have it in the plan or you do
not.
• Peer review is from your peer’s – think about what you
would like to read.
• Although each district determines what it will include in its
Body of Evidence, the evidence must be able to support
determinations about student mastery in each of the core
content areas:
• career/vocational education,
• fine and performing arts,
• foreign languages,
• health,
• language arts,
• mathematics,
• physical education,
• science, and
• social studies.

Take a minute at your table and
discuss what core and non-core areas
that you will be submitting at the
April 2009 peer review.
Why
did you select these areas?
Do all teachers know the areas?
Beginning with the graduating class of
2006, a student may earn one of three
possible endorsements on his or her
transcript: advanced, comprehensive,
or general.
Where you are, where you are going, and how do you complete
the task? Might be different for each content area.
Course-Based
Course-Based & Common Assessment
District-Based
Multi-District
Standardized Assessment
Mixed Models
44
45
46
47
47
48
Which approach are you currently using? Explain to team.
If you haven’t selected an approach,
this is where your team will begin.
Five Design Criteria of BOE
(Pages 94-99)
•
•
•
•
•
Alignment
Consistency
Fairness
Standard-Setting
Comparability
Work Time




September: Getting Started/Descriptive
Feedback/Planning for November, February, April
November: Standard Setting (based on district
feedback)
February: Mock peer review using protocol and
descriptive feedback/work time
April?
At this point, think about the top
three things you would like your
peers to review.
Day Two

Questions/Clarifications/Comments



As a team, determine three focus areas.
List on handout.
Partner with a district.
 Comparable




in size
Explain list to partner district.
Clarify questions.
Review plan.
45 minutes



Share feedback.
Clarify questions.
Clarify comments.

Lunch 11:30 to12:30

Discuss next steps/needs

Planning



Have districts present their process – 20 minutes
Practice the process on page – 61-64 (with fictitious
student work examples)
Item-based versus work-based



Have districts present their process – 20 minutes
Practice the process on page – 61-64 (with fictitious
student work examples)
Item-based versus work-based

See you in November