Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence National Institute April 12 and 13, 2012.

Educator Evaluation

SystemBlue Ribbon Schools of Excellence National Institute

April 12 and 13, 2012

Presenters Donna Martinson, Teacher, Parker Middle School Elisabeth Shanley, Teacher, Parker Middle School Tara Herlihy, Teacher, Coolidge Middle School Margaret Guilbert, Teacher, Coolidge Middle School John Doherty, Superintendent of Schools

Agenda Discussion of Educator Evaluation Regulations Comparison to Our TAP

o What is the sameo What is new

How does this effect me as a teacher? Next steps in the process Questions

Educator Evaluation Model System

4http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/model/

Educator Evaluation New DESE Regulations approved on June 28, 2011 Collaboratively Designed by

o Massachusetts Teachers Associationo Massachusetts Association of Secondary School

Principalso Massachusetts Elementary School Principals Associationo Massachusetts Association of School Superintendentso Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Requires evaluation of all educators on a license Designed to promote leaders and teachers growth

and development

Reading is an Early Adopter

Our current system is comparable to new DESE model Allowed us to give significant input into the process Developed a network with other school districts Attended professional development opportunities Piloted

o Educator Plan with SMART Goalso Superintendent’s Evaluation Processo Principal Evaluation Process

TAP Committee Representation from every school Compared current rubric with model rubric

system Reviewed model contract language Will be involved in development of forms for

September, 2012

What is the same? Focuses on Educator Growth and not “Gotcha” Five Step Evaluation Cycle

o Self-Assessmento Analysis, Goal Setting, Educator Plan Developmento Implementation of Plano Formative Assessment (Midyear or Mid-cycle)o Summative Evaluation (End of Year/Cycle Evaluation)

Rubric for Evaluation Use of Artifacts for Evidence

o Lesson Plans, Professional Development Activities, Flierso Walkthroughs

Differentiated Approacho New Teacherso Non-PTS Teacherso PTS Teacherso PTS Teachers who need additional support

Use of SMART Goals

What is different? Levels of Performance on Rubric

o Exemplary (Exceeding the Standard)o Proficient (Meeting the Standard)o Needs Improvement (Progressing Toward the Standard)o Unsatisfactory (Does not meet standard)

Specificity of Rubrico Standards o Indicatorso Elements

Four Standards instead of Six Fewer “Formal” Observations Multiple Measures of Student Performance (2013-14

School Year) Use of student surveys (2014-15 School Year)

10

5 Step Evaluation Cycle

Continuous Learning

Every educator is an active participant in an evaluation

Process promotes collaboration and continuous learning

Foundation for the Model

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education11

5 Step Evaluation Cycle: Rubrics

11

Part III: Guide to RubricsPages 4-5

Rubric is used to assess

performance and/or progress

toward goals

Rubric is used to analyze

performance and determine

ratings on each Standard

and Overall

Every educator uses a rubric to

self-assess against Performance

Standards

Professional Practice goals – team and/or individual must be tied to one or more

Performance Standards

Evidence is collected for

Standards and Indicators;

rubric should be used to provide

feedback

Four Different Educator Plans

The Developing Educator Plan (Non-PTS Teachers and teachers new to a position) is developed by the educator and the evaluator and is for one school year or less.

The Self-Directed Growth Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated Proficient or Exemplary and is developed by the educator. When the Rating of Impact on Student Learning is implemented (beginning in 2013-14), educators with a Moderate or High Rating of Impact will be on a two-year plan; educators with a Low Rating will be on a one-year plan.

The Directed Growth Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated Needs Improvement and is a plan of one school year or less developed by the educator and the evaluator.

The Improvement Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated Unsatisfactory and is a plan of no less than 30 calendar days and no longer than one school year, developed by the evaluator.

Goal Setting ProcessFocus-Coherence-Synergy

District Strategy Superintendent Goals School Committee

School Improvement Principal Goals Plans

Classroom Practice Teacher Goals

Student Achievement

Standards, Indicators and Rubrics

Standards (4)-Required in Regulationso Instructional Leadership (5 Indicators)o Management and Operations (5 Indicators)o Family and Community Engagement (4 Indicators)o Professional Culture (6 Indicators)

Indicators (20)-Required in Regulations Elements (32)-May be modified, but most keep

rigor Rubrics

o A tool for making explicit and specific the behaviors and actions present at each level of performance.

15

Model Rubrics: Structure

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationPart III: Guide to RubricsPage 6

16

Model Rubrics: Vertical Alignment within Rubrics

Example: Teacher Rubrico Standard I

• “Standard I. Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment”o Indicator B

• “Indicator I-B. Assessment”o Elements 1 & 2

• I-B-1: Variety of Assessment Methods• I-B-2: Adjustments to Practice

Part III: Guide to RubricsAppendix C, pages 2-4


17

Model Rubrics: Structure


18

Exemplary

“The educator’s performance significantly exceeds Proficient and could serve as a model for leaders districtwide or even statewide. Few educators—principals and superintendents included—are expected to demonstrate Exemplary performance on more than a small number of Indicators or Standards.”


19

Proficient

“Proficient is the expected, rigorous level of performance for educators. It is the demanding but attainable level of performance for most educators.”


Needs Improvement Educators whose performance on a Standard is

rated as Needs Improvement may demonstrate inconsistencies in practice or weaknesses in a few key areas. They may not yet fully integrate and/or apply their knowledge and skills in an effective way. They may be new to the field or to this assignment and are developing their craft.

Unsatisfactory Educators whose performance on a Standard is rated

as Unsatisfactory are significantly underperforming as compared to the expectations. Unsatisfactory performance requires urgent attention.

Standard I:Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment

Standard II:Teaching All Students

Standard III:Family and Community Engagement

Standard IV:Professional Culture

A. Curriculum and Planning Indicator

1. Subject Matter Knowledge

2. Child and Adolescent Development

3. Rigorous Standards-Based Unit Design

4. Well-Structured Lessons

A. Instruction Indicator

1. Quality of Effort and Work

2. Student Engagement

3. Meeting Diverse Needs

A. Engagement Indicator

1. Parent/Family Engagement

A. Reflection Indicator

1. Reflective Practice

2. Goal Setting

B. Assessment Indicator

1. Variety of Assessment Methods

2. Adjustments to Practice

B. Learning Environment Indicator

1. Safe Learning Environment

2. Collaborative Learning Environment

3. Student Motivation

B. Collaboration Indicator

1. Learning Expectations

2. Curriculum Support

B. Professional Growth Indicator

1. Professional Learning and Growth

C. Analysis Indicator

1. Analysis and Conclusions

2. Sharing Conclusions With Colleagues

3. Sharing Conclusions With Students

C. Cultural Proficiency Indicator

1. Respects Differences

2. Maintains Respectful Environment

C. Communication Indicator

1. Two-Way Communication

2. Culturally Proficient Communication

C. Collaboration Indicator

1. Professional Collaboration

D. Expectations Indicator

1. Clear Expectations

2. High Expectations

3. Access to Knowledge

D. Decision-Making Indicator

1. Decision-making

E. Shared Responsibility Indicator

1. Shared Responsibility

F. Professional Responsibilities Indicator

1. Judgment

2. Reliability and Responsibility

Example of Teacher Rubric

Standard I: Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment. The teacher promotes the learning and growth of all students by providing high-quality and coherent instruction, designing and administering authentic and meaningful student assessments, analyzing student performance and growth data, using this data to improve instruction, providing students with constructive feedback on an ongoing basis, and continuously refining learning objectives.

Example Indicator I-A. Curriculum and Planning: Knows

the subject matter well, has a good grasp of child development and how students learn, and designs effective and rigorous standards-based units of instruction consisting of well-structured lessons with measurable outcomes.

Example Element A-1. Subject Matter Knowledge

o Proficient-Demonstrates sound knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and the pedagogy it requires by consistently engaging students in learning experiences that enable them to acquire complex knowledge and skills in the subject.

Educators earn two separate ratings

26

Summative

Rating

Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF-

DIRECTED GROWTH

PLAN

2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN

Proficient

Needs Improvement DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN

Unsatisfactory IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Low Moderate High

Rating of Impact on Student Learning(multiple measures of performance, including MCAS

Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Summative

Rating


DIRECTED GROWTH

PLAN


Proficient



Low Moderate High


Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available)

Educators earn two separate ratings

27

Summative

Rating


DIRECTED GROWTH

PLAN


Proficient



Low Moderate High


Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Summative

Rating


DIRECTED GROWTH

PLAN


Proficient



Low Moderate High


Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available)

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education28

Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative performance rating

Phase-in Over Next 2 Years

Phase 1-Summative ratings based on attainment of goals and performance against the four Standards defined in the educator evaluation requirements (September, 2012)

Phase 2-Rating of educator impact on student learning gains based on trends and patterns of multiple measures of student learning gains (September, 2013)

Phase 3-Using feedback from students (for teachers) and teachers (for administrators)-(September, 2014)

Next Steps Collective Bargaining Process for Areas Not in

Regulations Meeting with individual schools to discuss process

further Training for Primary and Secondary Supervisors

on Process and Calibration of Rubric TAP Committee Summer Work

o New Formso Planning professional development opportunities

September Inserviceo SMART Goal Development

31

or “The” organizing initiative?

“An” initiative?


Examples of District/School

Initiatives Adopting the new MA Curriculum Frameworks 21st Century/Global Skills Anti-Bullying Professional learning communities Examining student work Data Teams Project Based Learning Common course/grade level assessments Elementary Report Cards Social Emotional Health BYOD

32Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Some Thoughts As An Early Adopter

This may be the most important initiative that you undertake in your district

Look at this as an opportunity to improve teaching and learning and educator growth in your district

Plan your strategy and process Train staff on how to write and implement SMART goals Collaboration is critical to the success of this implementation Link this system to the common core and assessment

development Use the DESE materials Adopt the model rubric Transparent and ongoing open honest communication is critical Develop a logic model on how you will implement this process Involve your staff, school committee, and community early and

often in the communication process

Thank You!

Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence National Institute April 12 and 13, 2012.

Documents

Transcript of Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence National Institute April 12 and 13, 2012.