getting started: educator evaluation in non-rttt districts

Getting Started: Educator Evaluation in Non-RTTT Districts

Please sit with your district or school team members You will be talking with them during today’s workshop

3

What opportunities will this new educator evaluation framework provide for professional growth and student learning in your district or school?

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

3

Question:

4

Welcome & Introductions Evaluation Framework: What sets Massachusetts apart? 5-Step Cycle of Evaluation Guest Speaker: What does this look like on the ground? BREAK Communications: Opportunity for Coherence Collective Bargaining and Reporting Requirements District-Determined Measures Training Team Time Wrap-Up

4

Agenda


Priorities of the new evaluation framework

Place Student Learning at the Center – Student learning is central to the evaluation and development of educators

Promote Growth and Development – Provide all educators with feedback and opportunities that support continuous growth and improvement through collaboration

Recognize Excellence – Encourage districts to recognize and reward excellence in teaching and leadership

Set a High Bar for Tenure – Entrants to the teaching force must demonstrate Proficient performance on all standards within three years to earn Professional Teacher Status

Shorten Timelines for Improvement – Educators who are not rated Proficient face accelerated timelines for improvement

5We want to ensure that each student in the Commonwealth

is taught by an effective educator, in schools and districts led by effective leaders.Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

6

The ESE Educator Evaluation Team


7

Our MissionTo improve professional growth and student learning, ESE is committed to ensuring the

success of the statewide Educator Evaluation framework by providing educators with training materials and resources, meaningful guidance, and timely communications, and by engaging

educators in the development and ongoing refinement of the framework.


Three Key Strategies

8

Teach

Learn

Connect

Teaching the components of the Educator Evaluation framework and sharing implementation resources to build capacity within districts and schools.

Learning from and with educators about their successes, challenges, and needs to ensure educator voices are reflected in Educator Evaluation policies and practices.

Connecting and aligning Educator Evaluation implementation with other state and district initiatives to improve professional growth and student learning; Creating opportunities for educators to connect and share with one another and ESE. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

9

ESE Educator Evaluation Team

Claire Abbott, Evaluation Training Program, Implementation Support, Resource Development

Kathryn Gabriele, Staff & Student Feedback, District-Determined Measures, Data Collection and Reporting

Kat Johnston, Communications, Peer Assistance & Review, Implementation Support

Simone Lynch, Assistant Director, Office of Educator Policy, Preparation and Leadership

Ron Noble, Project Co-Lead, Evaluation System Reviews, District-Determined Measures, Staff & Student Feedback

Samantha Warburton, Project Co-Lead, Evaluation Training Program & Vendors, Implementation Support, Resource Support


mailto:[email protected]






10

June 2011: MA Board of Education passed new regulations

September 2011: Implementation began in 34 Level 4 schools, 11 Early Adopter districts, and 4 special education collaboratives

January 2012: ESE published the Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation

September 2012: Implementation began in all RTTT districts

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 2013: All districts implement educator

evaluation10

Ed Eval Framework: Timeline


11

ESE Model System Teacher & Administrator Contract Language School & District Implementation Guides 4 Model Performance Rubrics

ESE Training Materials Modules & Workshops

Additional Resources & Supports Forms, guidance documents, webinars,

presentations, newsletter, approved vendors11

ESE Resources


ESE Ed Eval Website More information:

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval

Questions: [email protected]

12


http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval


13

Intended Outcomes Participants will: Know more about the new educator evaluation

system and what it will mean to introduce it to your district over the course of the next year

Know more about available ESE resources, and how to use them back at your district

Be familiar with the implementation timeline for Year 1, including training and reporting requirements

Have at least one clear, agreed upon “next step” for action back in your district


14

Welcome & Introductions Evaluation Framework: What sets MA apart? 5-Step Cycle of Evaluation Guest Speaker: What does this look like on the ground? BREAK Communications: Opportunity for Coherence Collective Bargaining and Reporting Requirements District-Determined Measures Training Team Time Wrap-Up

14

Agenda


15

Two separate ratings Three types of evidence Four common Standards Educator Evaluation

15

What sets Massachusetts apart?


16


16

Agenda


17

Every educator is an active participant in the evaluation process

Continuous Learning

Collaboration and Continuous Learning are the focus

Step 1: Incoming ELL students underperformed in Math & ELA; Indicator II.A: Instruction was an area in need of impr. for

ELLs.

Step 2: SLG: ELL students

master content standards

across 3 units. PPG (TEAM):

Identify & pilot 3 instructional strategies for

improving comprehension.

Step 3: Artifacts (lesson plans, team meeting

notes, teacher/parent

communication); student work, pre/post lab

reports, writing assessments,; 4 observations w/

feedback; student feedback survey in mid-spring)

Step 5: Tom was rated Proficient on Standards II,

III & IV, and Exemplary on I,

and met or partially met goals. Overall

Summative Rating:

Proficient.Step 4: Evidence showed rising ELL

student performance + success w/ 2 new

instructional strategies; discussed additional

outreach to parents re: homework.


Step 1: Self-Assessment Educators self-assess their performance

using: Student data, and Performance rubric

Educators propose goals related to their professional practice and student learning needs

18

Part II: School Level Guide (p. 14-22)Module 3 and Workshop 2: Self-Assessment


Step 2: Analysis, Goal Setting and Plan Development

Educators set S.M.A.R.T. goals: Student learning goal Professional practice goal

(Aligned to the Standards and Indicators of Effective Practice)

Educators are required to consider team goals

Educator and Evaluator develop the Educator Plan

19

Part II: School Level Guide (p. 23-31, Appendix B: Setting S.M.A.R.T Goals)


Step 2: Analysis, Goal Setting and Plan Development

20

The educator plan is based on S.M.A.R.T. goals.

Step 3: Implementation of the Plan

Educator completes the planned action steps of his/her plan

Educator and evaluator collect evidence of practice and goal progress, including:1. Observations and artifacts2. Multiple measures of student learning3. Additional evidence related to performance

standards Evaluator provides feedback 21

Part II: School Level GuidePages 32-39



Three Types of Evidence 1. Products of Practice Artifacts related to educator practice

Samples that demonstrate educator performance and impact

Number to collect varies by educator Observations of practice

At least one unannounced Frequent & brief Constructive feedback

22

Module 5 and Workshop 4: Gathering Evidence


Three Types of Evidence 2. Multiple Measures of Student Learning Evidence of Progress toward educator goals Evidence of Performance associated with one

or more Standards

23

Module 5 and Workshop 4: Gathering Evidence


Three Types of Evidence

3. Other Evidence Related to one or more Performance Standards Student feedback informs the Summative Performance

Rating of ALL educators

Staff feedback informs the Summative Performance Rating of all administrators

ESE will publish guidance and model student and staff survey instruments by July 1, 2013.

For more information, please contact Kathryn Gabriele at [email protected].

24

Module 5 and Workshop 4: Gathering EvidenceQRG: Staff & Student Feedback


Step 4: Formative Assessment/ Evaluation Occurs mid-way through the 5-Step

Cycle Typically Jan/Feb for educators on a 1-year

plan (formative assessment) Typically May/June for educators on a 2-year

plan (formative evaluation)

Educator and Evaluator review evidence and assess progress on educator’s goals 25

Part II: School Level GuidePages 40-47 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Step 5: Summative Evaluation Summative Evaluation results in:

Individual ratings on each of the four Standards

Assessment of overall goal progress Overall Summative Performance Rating

Evaluator determines the Summative Performance Rating based on: Comprehensive picture of practice captured

through multiple sources of evidence Professional Judgment

26

Part II: School Level GuidePages 48-53 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

27

Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative rating

27


Determining Your Educator Plan

Summativ

e Rating

Exemplary 1-yr Self-Directed

Growth Plan2-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan

Proficient

Needs Improvement

Directed Growth Plan (1 yr or less)

Unsatisfactory Improvement Plan (30 days to 1 yr)

*Developing Educator Plan: for new teachers & administrators

28


29

5 Step Evaluation Cycle

Continuous Learning

Performance Rubrics

Self-Assessment Measurable Goals Brief, frequent

observations Evidence Collection Regular, timely

feedback


30

Welcome & Introductions Evaluation Framework: What sets Massachusetts apart? 5-Step Cycle of Evaluation Guest Speaker: What does this look like on the

ground? BREAK Communications: Opportunity for Coherence Collective Bargaining and Reporting Requirements District-Determined Measures Training Team Time Wrap-Up

30

Agenda


31

10-minute BREAK

31


32

Welcome & Introductions Evaluation Framework: How is Massachusetts different? 5-Step Cycle of Evaluation Guest Speaker: What does this look like on the ground? BREAK Communications: Opportunity for Coherence Collective Bargaining and Reporting Requirements District-Determined Measures Training Team Time Wrap-Up

32

Agenda


Early Learnings Comprehensive, transparent communications

strategies across all educators are critical to implementation success in Year One (Early Adopters & Level 4 districts)

Key stakeholders view new evaluation system positively and believe it is a significant improvement (3rd party evaluator)

Establishing coherence with other initiatives plays key role in making this “meaningful” to educators (Early Adopters & Level 4 districts)

33


34


34

Opportunity for CoherenceI. Curriculum, Planning, & Assessment

II. Teaching All Students

III. Family & Community Engagement

IV. ProfessionalCulture

A. Curriculum and Planning1. Subject Matter

Knowledge2. Child and Adolescent

Development3. Rigorous Standards-

Based Unit Design4. Well-Structured

Lessons

B. Assessment5. Variety of Assessment

Methods6. Adjustments to

Practice

C. Analysis7. Analysis and

Conclusions8. Sharing Conclusions

with Colleagues9. Sharing Conclusions

with Students

A. Instruction1. Quality and Effort of

Work2. Student Engagement3. Meeting Diverse Needs

B. Learning Environment4. Safe Learning

Environment5. Collaborative Learning

Environment6. Student Motivation

C. Cultural Proficiency7. Respects Differences8. Maintains Respectful

EnvironmentD. Expectations

9. Clear Expectations10.High Expectations11.Access to Knowledge

A. Engagement1. Parent/Family

Engagement

B. Collaboration2. Learning Expectations3. Curriculum Support

C. Communication4. Two-Way

Communication5. Culturally Proficient

Communication

A. Reflection1. Reflective Practice2. Goal Setting

B. Professional Growth3. Professional Learning

and Growth

C. Collaboration1. Professional

Collaboration

D. Decision-making1. Decision-Making

E. Shared Responsibility2. Shared Responsibility

F. Professional Responsibilities3. Judgment4. Reliability and

ResponsibilityMassachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Communications What strategies are you using (or could

you use) to communicate opportunities and expectations to teachers, administrators, union leaders, and school committee members for your district’s implementation?

What’s the success story you want to tell five years from now? 35


Communications Tips & Strategies

Establish a collaborative Educator Evaluation working group comprised of diverse stakeholders

Commit to regular two-way communications (ex. monthly newsletter, Wiki page, regular and open channels to provide feedback)

Develop a strategic communications plan that includes key messages, timeline, and available resources so educators are continually kept up to date and involved in the process

36


37


37

Agenda



38

The procedures for conducting educator evaluation are a mandatory subject of collective bargaining in Massachusetts.

ESE Resources: Model Contract Language for Teachers (Unit A) (plus

annotated version) Model Contract Language for School Administrators

(Unit B) District Options: Adopt, Adapt, Revise Districts are encouraged to conduct bargaining

in a way that permits the parties to return to educator evaluation periodically over the next several years.

38

Collective Bargaining & Reporting Requirements

Part IV: Model Collective Bargaining Contract Language (Appendix C and Appendix D)

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/model/PartVI_AppxC.pdf

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/model/PartVI_AppxD.pdf

39

Highlights from RTTT District Implementation RTTT Districts approached contract language

concerning educator evaluation in several ways, including: Detailed process included in collective bargaining

agreements Some process in the contract and some in side letters

or other documents (e.g., guidebooks, manuals) MOU/MOA outlining the districts’ decisions to adopt

the model contract language with little to no modifications

39


RTTT DistrictsAdoption Rate Adaption Rateapprox. 25% approx. 60%

Approximately 85% of RTTT Districts used the model contract language as their starting point.


40

Highlights from RTTT District Implementation: Benefits to convening joint labor-management

working groups early in the process included: Abbreviated negotiations leading to timely

implementation Consistent understanding and appreciation of the

framework at the district and school levels Districts unable to reach agreement by Fall

2012 found that some elements of the system were compromised or rushed. 40



41

Districts must notify ESE of decision to adopt, adapt, or revise

Adapted or revised systems must be submitted for ESE review

Submissions must include: Teacher Contract Language or comparable document Administrator (Unit B) Contract Language or

comparable document School- and District-Administrator Evaluation Protocol Performance Rubrics

Target Submission Date: September 1, 201341




42

Key regulatory components subject to review:1. 5-step evaluation cycle2. Standards and Indicators of Effective Practice3. Three Categories of Evidence 4. Four Performance Rating Levels 5. Four Types of Educator Plans 6. Educators rated as having a high, moderate, or low

impact on student learning based on trends and patterns in student performance measures including MCAS and district-determined measures.

Questions? Please contact Ron Noble ([email protected])

42


2-Page Overview of Educator Evaluation Regulations


http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr35overview.pdf

http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr35overview.pdf

43


43

Agenda



Student Impact Rating The Student Impact Rating must be based

on at least 2 years of data across multiple measures: State assessments that measure growth (ex.

MCAS student growth percentiles) District-determined measures

44

Part VII: Rating Educator Impact on Student Learning Using District-Determined Measures of Student Learning

Two Ratings

45

Summativ

e Rating

Exemplary 1-yr Self-Directed

Growth Plan2-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan

Proficient

Needs Improvement

Directed Growth Plan

Unsatisfactory Improvement Plan

Low Moderate HighRating of Impact on Student

Learning


District-Determined Measures Definition from the regulations:

“Measures of student learning, growth, and achievement related to the Massachusetts

Curriculum Frameworks, Massachusetts Vocational Technical Education Frameworks, or

other relevant frameworks, that are comparable across grade or subject level district-wide.

These measures may include, but shall not be limited to: portfolios, approved commercial assessments and district-developed pre and post unit and course assessments,

and capstone projects.” 46

603 CMR 35.02


http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr35.html?section=02

http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr35.html?section=02

District-Determined Measures DDMs should measure growth, not just

achievement.

Assessments should be administered across all schools in the district where the same grade or subject is taught.

Districts must use measures of growth from state assessments where they are available. Only applicable to fewer than 20% of educators

47


Priorities of the new evaluation framework

Place Student Learning at the Center – Student learning is central to the evaluation and development of educators

Promote Growth and Development – Provide all educators with feedback and opportunities that support continuous growth and improvement through collaboration

Recognize Excellence – Encourage districts to recognize and reward excellence in teaching and leadership

Set a High Bar for Tenure – Entrants to the teaching force must demonstrate Proficient performance on all standards within three years to earn Professional Teacher Status

Shorten Timelines for Improvement – Educators who are not rated Proficient face accelerated timelines for improvement

48We want to ensure that each student in the Commonwealth

is taught by an effective educator, in schools and districts led by effective leaders.Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

District-Determined Measures

49

DDMs may inform both an educator’s summative performance rating and impact rating

Summative Performanc

e Rating

Student Impact Rating

Evidence Products of practice (e.g.,

observations) Other evidence relevant to one or

more of the four Standards of practice (e.g., student surveys)

Multiple measures of student learning, growth and achievement, including:o Measures of student progress

on classroom assessmentso Measures of student progress

on learning goals set between the educator and evaluator

Evidence Trends and patterns in student

learning, growth & achievement At least two years of data At least two measures

Statewide growth measures, where available (including MCAS SGP)

Additional DDMs comparable across schools, grades, and subject matter district-wide



District-Determined Measures: Implementation Rollout

In Sept. 2013, districts will report to ESE: Grades and subjects for implementation of DDMs in

2013-2014; Grades and subjects for piloting DDMs in 2013-2014; Grades and subjects that still lack DDMs, for which

districts will research and/or develop measures to pilot in the spring of 2014;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A plan for determining impact ratings based on

DDMs for some educators by the end of the 2014-2015 school year, and all educators by the end of the 2015-2016 school year

50

Quick Reference Guide: District-Determined Measures

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/resources/QRG-Measures.pdf




What Support is ESE Providing? Identification of “anchor standards” for a

sub-set of grades and subjects Targeted for publication in July 2013

ESE is overseeing the collection and evaluation of quality assessments from MA districts and beyond that will be made available for use as DDMs Exemplar DDMs targeted to be available in July

2013

51

Quick Reference Guide: District-Determined Measures





District-Determined MeasuresWhat Support is ESE Providing? Assessment literacy webinar series to build district

capacity to identify and/or develop DDMs All webinars will be archived and posted Webinar series will focus on resulting in useful products for

planning and implementation

Supplemental guidance on the selection of DDMs and the process of determining an Impact Rating Technical Guide A (April 2013) will focus on measuring growth

and selecting appropriate measures Technical Guide B (Summer 2013) will focus on determining a

Student Impact RatingQuestions? Please contact Ron Noble ([email protected])

52

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationQuick Reference Guide: District-Determined Measures






Recommended Next Steps to Creating a District Plan

Identify a team of administrators, teachers and specialists to focus and plan the district’s work on district-determined measures.

Complete an inventory of existing assessments used in the district’s schools.

Identify and coordinate with partners that have capacity to assist in the work of identifying and assessing assessments that may serve as district-determined measures.

53

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationQuick Reference Guide: District-Determined Measures




5454

The two ratings work together


55


55

Agenda


Training “An Act Providing for the Implementation

of Educator Evaluation Systems in School Districts” http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2012/Chapter131

Training Requirement for all evaluators and all

educators who must be evaluated under framework to receive “evaluation training program developed by the department of elementary and secondary education”

56


http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2012/Chapter131

ESE Training Programs

Training Workshops for Teachers and SISP Time: 4 hours (minimum) Content: Orientation + Workshops 1-3 Audience: All educators without evaluator responsibilities Facilitators: school-level educators (administrators or teacher

leaders)www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/teachers/

Training Modules for Evaluators Time: 11 hours (minimum) Content: Overview + Modules 2-6 Audience: Evaluators and School Leadership Teams Facilitators: School- or District-level PD providers; vendors

www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/modules/

57


http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/teachers/

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/modules/

Vendor Support

ESE has committed $1 million in RTTT funds to subsidize module training by approved vendors for non-RTTT districts. Subsidies will go directly to approved vendors who then offer services to districts at a proportionately reduced cost.

Information on approved vendors and subsidized services will be available at www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/vendors.

58


http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/vendors.html

TrainingReporting Requirements for Non-RTTT Districts: Fiscal year 2014: Districts should designate

some, if not all, of their Chapter 70 foundation budget allotment for professional development and Title IIA funds to subsidize the cost of a training program

October 1, 2013: Districts must publish an educator evaluation training schedule

November 1, 2013: Districts must submit a funding plan for training to ESE via the Title IIA application process

59


Training Resources ESE Guide to Educator Evaluation Training Requirements (

www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/TrainingRequirements.pdf)

Quick Reference Guide: Training Requirements (www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/)

ESE Training Programs (www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/)

Approved Vendors (www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/vendors/)

Questions? Please contact Claire Abbott ([email protected])

7


http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/TrainingRequirements.pdf

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/TrainingRequirements.pdf

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/vendors/


61


61

Agenda


Team Time

Question

Year 1 Strategic Planning & Implementation Worksheet

62


63

Welcome & Introductions Evaluation Framework: What sets Massachusetts apart? 5-Step Cycle of Evaluation Guest Speaker: What does this look like on the ground? BREAK Communications: Opportunity for Coherence Training Collective Bargaining and Reporting Requirements District-Determined Measures Team Time Wrap-Up

63

Agenda


Intended OutcomesParticipants will: Know more about the new educator evaluation

system and what it will mean to introduce it to your district over the course of the next year

Know more about available ESE resources, and how to use them back at your district

Be familiar with the implementation timeline for Year 1, including training and reporting requirements

Have at least one clear, agreed upon “next step” for action back in your district 64


65

Plus – DeltaWhat worked? What would

make it better?


Upcoming ESE Resources Guidance on Determining Summative

Performance Ratings April 2013

DDM Webinar Series March 14, 2013 – December 5, 2013

DDM Technical Guide A April 2013

DDM Technical Guide B August 2013

Exemplar S.M.A.R.T. Goals Summer 2013 66


67

Handouts Today’s Powerpoint Presentation 2-page Overview of Key Features of the Regulations Quick Reference Guide: MA Model System for Educator

Evaluation 1- and 2-year Evaluation Cycle Quick Reference Guide: Rubrics Quick Reference Guide: Staff & Student Feedback Rubric-At-A-Glance (Teacher & School Administrator) Quick Reference Guide: Training Requirements Quick Reference Guide: DDMs Strategic Planning & Implementation Worksheet


getting started: educator evaluation in non-rttt districts

Documents

effective evaluation

evaluation cycle

new evaluation system

educator growth

new framework

effective educator

professional growth

professional development