1 / 15

Model Contract Language: The S tudent Impact Rating and DDMs

Model Contract Language: The S tudent Impact Rating and DDMs. M.A.S.S. Mid-Winter Meeting January 30, 2014 Ron Noble, Educator Evaluation Project Lead, ESE. ESE Priorities. The process for identifying DDMs must be:

jabari
Download Presentation

Model Contract Language: The S tudent Impact Rating and DDMs

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. Model Contract Language:The Student Impact Rating and DDMs M.A.S.S. Mid-Winter Meeting January 30, 2014 Ron Noble, Educator Evaluation Project Lead, ESE

  2. ESE Priorities The process for identifying DDMs must be: • Collaborative: teachers must be included as priority partners in the work of identifying DDMs • Expeditious: the process for identifying DDMs must be purposeful and time-bound to enable districts to begin implementation during the 2014-15 school year 2 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education

  3. Crafting the Language • Representatives from the following associations (in alphabetical order) contributed to the development of the MCL: • AFT-MA • MASC • MASS • MTA

  4. “Drop-In” Approach • Language designed to supplant the placeholder language in Section 22 of the original MCL. • Note to those who adopted or adapted the original MCL: The section headings have been designed to allow you to “drop-in” the new language without impacting other contract provisions.

  5. Table of Contents • Section 22 – Rating of Educator Impact on Student Learning (Student Impact Rating) • Basis of the Student Impact Rating • Identifying and Selecting DDMs • Determining Educator Impact for Each DDM • Determining the Student Impact Rating • Intersection between the Summative Performance Rating and the Student Impact Rating • Initial Reporting of Student Impact Ratings

  6. Basis of the Student Impact Rating • Describes the regulatory basis. • Statewide growth measures, where available. • DDMs

  7. Identifying and Selecting DDMs • Establishes a DDM Working Group • Co-chaired by superintendent and president of local bargaining unit or their designees. • Surveys the district for available assessments • Recruits educators to identify assessments and make recommendations • Identifies at least two measures for each educator • Collects feedback on the quality of the DDMs (continuous improvement) • Makes recommendations to the superintendent

  8. Identifying and Selecting DDMs • Sets DDM Selection Criteria • Direct or indirect measures • Must be comparable • Must include parameters for high, moderate, and low student growth • Must be aligned to relevant frameworks

  9. Identifying and Selecting DDMs • Describes process for selecting DDMs • Working group makes recommendations to the superintendent. • If superintendent declines, expedited resolution process is triggered: • Parties petition the Commissioner • Commissioner forwards list of 3 hearing officers with curriculum and/or assessment expertise • Parties choose hearing officer • Hearing officer renders final decision • Educators are informed of their DDMs by fourth week of school. • Educators receive appropriate professional development.

  10. Determining Educator Impact on Each DDM • Provides educators opportunity to understand interim progress • Evaluator and educator meet. Evaluator determines whether students demonstrated high, moderate, or low growth on each DDM. • Evaluator shares the resulting designations of student growth with educator. • Educators confirm rosters. • Must be on roster by 10/1 and remain on roster through last day of testing. • Must be present for 90% of instructional time.

  11. Determining a Student Impact Rating • Introduces the application of professional judgment to determine the Student Impact Rating • Evaluator assigns rating using professional judgment. • Evaluator considers designations of high, moderate, or low student growth from at least two measures in each of at least two years. • If rating is low, evaluator meets with educator to discuss (could be coupled with meeting described in C). • If rating is moderate or high, evaluator/educator decide if meeting is necessary.

  12. Intersection of Ratings • Reinforces independent nature of the two ratings. • Exemplary/Moderate and Exemplary/High = recognition and rewards, including leadership roles, promotions, additional compensation, public commendation, and other acknowledgements. • Proficient/Moderate and Proficient/High = eligible for additional roles, responsibilities, and compensation. • Exemplary or Proficient matched with Moderate or High = 2-Year Self-Directed Growth Plan • Exemplary or Proficient matched with Low = 1-Year Self-Directed Growth Plan • Evaluator’s supervisor confirms rating. • Educator and evaluator analyze the discrepancy. • May impact Educator Plan goals. • Student Impact Rating informs the self-assessment and goal setting processes.

  13. Initial Reporting • 2014-15 = Year 1 • DDMs implemented • 2015-16 = Year 2 • DDMs implemented • Initial Student Impact Ratings determined and reported (initial Ratings based on two-year trends, districts may bargain to use three-year trends thereafter).

  14. Model Contract Language • The regulations provide high-level outline of Student Impact Rating. • Process is left to local negotiations. • ESE’s Model presents one approach focused on collaboration and reliance on educator expertise. • Modifications may be appropriate based on the local context and progress to date.

  15. Questions Ron Noble (781) 338-3243 rnoble@doe.mass.edu

More Related