1 / 67

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. Question:. 3.

mateo
Download Presentation

Getting Started: Educator Evaluation in Non-RTTT Districts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Getting Started: Educator Evaluation in Non-RTTT Districts

  2. Please sit with your district or school team membersYou will be talking with them during today’s workshop

  3. Question: 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

  4. Agenda 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  5. Priorities of the new evaluation framework We want to ensure that each student in the Commonwealth is taught by an effective educator, in schools and districts led by effective leaders. • 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  6. The ESE Educator Evaluation Team Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  7. Our Mission To 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. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  8. Three Key Strategies Learn Connect Teach 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  10. Ed Eval Framework: Timeline 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 evaluation Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  11. ESE Resources 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 vendors Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  12. ESE Ed Eval Website • More information: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval • Questions: EducatorEvaluation@doe.mass.edu Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  14. Agenda 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  15. What sets Massachusetts apart? 15 • Two separate ratings • Three types of evidence • Four common Standards • Educator Evaluation Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  16. Agenda 16 • 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  17. Continuous Learning Every educator is an active participant in the evaluation process 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 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 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 4: Evidence showed rising ELL student performance + success w/ 2 new instructional strategies; discussed additional outreach to parents re: homework. Collaboration and Continuous Learning are the focus Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  18. 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 Part II: School Level Guide (p. 14-22) Module 3 and Workshop 2: Self-Assessment Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  19. 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 Part II: School Level Guide (p. 23-31, Appendix B: Setting S.M.A.R.T Goals) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  20. Step 2: Analysis, Goal Setting and Plan Development • The educator plan is based on S.M.A.R.T. goals.

  21. 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: • Observations and artifacts • Multiple measures of student learning • Additional evidence related to performance standards • Evaluator provides feedback Part II: School Level Guide Pages 32-39 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  22. Three Types of Evidence • Products of Practice Artifacts related to educator practice • Samples that demonstrate educator performance and impact • Number to collect varies by educator Observationsof practice • At least one unannounced • Frequent & brief • Constructive feedback Module 5 and Workshop 4: Gathering Evidence Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  23. Three Types of Evidence • Multiple Measures of Student Learning • Evidence of Progress toward educator goals • Evidence of Performance associated with one or more Standards Module 5 and Workshop 4: Gathering Evidence Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  24. Three Types of Evidence • 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 kgabriele@doe.mass.edu. Module 5 and Workshop 4: Gathering Evidence QRG: Staff & Student Feedback Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  25. 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 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 40-47 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  26. 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 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 48-53 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  27. Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative rating 27 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  28. Determining Your Educator Plan Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  29. Continuous Learning 5 Step Evaluation Cycle • Performance Rubrics • Self-Assessment • Measurable Goals • Brief, frequent observations • Evidence Collection • Regular, timely feedback Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  30. Agenda 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  31. 31 10-minute BREAK Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  32. Agenda 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  33. 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) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  34. Opportunity for Coherence 34 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  35. 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? Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  36. 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  37. Agenda 37 • 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  38. Collective Bargaining & Reporting Requirements 38 Part IV: Model Collective Bargaining Contract Language (Appendix C and Appendix D) • 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. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  39. Collective Bargaining & Reporting Requirements 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  40. Collective Bargaining & Reporting Requirements 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. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  41. Collective Bargaining & Reporting Requirements 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, 2013 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  42. Collective Bargaining & Reporting Requirements 42 2-Page Overview of Educator Evaluation Regulations • Key regulatory components subject to review: • 5-step evaluation cycle • Standards and Indicators of Effective Practice • Three Categories of Evidence • Four Performance Rating Levels • Four Types of Educator Plans • 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 (rnoble@doe.mass.edu) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  43. Agenda 43 • 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  44. 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 Part VII: Rating Educator Impact on Student Learning Using District-Determined Measures of Student Learning Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  45. Two Ratings Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  46. 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.” 603 CMR 35.02 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  47. 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  48. Priorities of the new evaluation framework We want to ensure that each student in the Commonwealth is taught by an effective educator, in schools and districts led by effective leaders. • 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  49. District-Determined Measures • DDMs may inform both an educator’s summative performance rating and impact rating Summative Performance Rating Student Impact Rating Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  50. 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 Quick Reference Guide: District-Determined Measures Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

More Related