Evaluating Teachers Impacting
Learning:
The Massachusetts Strategy
October 30, 2013
Karla Brooks Baehr, Ed.D.
kbaehr@dmcouncil.org
1
Overview
 Frame Massachusetts’ overall approach to Educator
Evaluation
 Highlight how the approach is different than most
states’ in:
 How teacher impact on learning is determined
 How teacher impact on learning counts
 Argue why the Massachusetts approach makes sense
and will contribute to the changes we need in our
schools
2
The foundation:
A 5-Step Cycle for every educator
 Every educator is an
active participant in
his/her evaluation
 Process is built on
and promotes
collaboration and
continuous learning
3
Every educator is an active participant in the
evaluation process Every educator proposes
Every educator
uses a 4-level
rubric, student
feedback and data
about student
learning to selfassess
Every educator
earns one of 4
ratings based on
performance
against the 4
standards and
progress on 2
goals
at least 1 professional
practice goal and 1 student
learning goal – team goals
must be considered. The
evaluator approves a Plan
Continuous
Learning
Every educator
has a mid-cycle
review
* All administrators and teachers in grades 5-12
Every educator
and evaluator
carefully chooses
evidence and
assesses progress
on the goals &
against the
standards
4
Student Learning Goals
All individual, team,
school & district
data about student
learning is “fair
game”
Evaluator
determines how
heavily to weight
achievement of
student learning
goal in overall
summative
rating
The student learning goal:
• individual or team
• subgroups or all
• growth or achievement
Evaluator has final say
Continuous
Learning
5
An 8th grade English teacher’s
goal-setting process
1. Considered his team’s ideas for goals
2. Examined prior year’s student growth data from state
assessment
3. Identified a bi-modal distribution for his weakest students
4. Looked at data from two years earlier
5. Considered the role “Writers’ Workshop” might be playing
for students who may struggle with “on demand” writing
6. Proposed a student learning goal of reducing the proportion
of SGP scores below 40 by 50%
7. Developed a linked professional practice goal to modify
“Writers’ Workshop” for identified struggling students.
6
Summative Ratings:
the Widget Effect
Springfield, MA, June 2012: 3 categories of performance
High
“Does
not
Meet”
Expectations
0.6%
“Exceeds”
Expectations
46%
Frequency
“Meets”
Expectations
53.4%
Low
Low
Teacher & Administrator Performance Level
High
7
Summative Ratings
have already changed
AFTER: Springfield, MA June 2013
Needs
Unsatisfactory Improvement
18%
2%
Proficient
75%
Exemplary
(5%)
Frequency
High
Low
Low
Teacher Performance
Level
High
8
Every educator earns two ratings
Every educator
earns one of 4
ratings based on
performance
against 4
standards and
progress on 2
goals
Continuous
Learning
Every educator
earns a rating of
high,
moderate or
low
for his/her
IMPACT ON
STUDENT
LEARNING
based on trends
and patterns in
student growth
data
9
Rating of Impact on Student
Learning
The rating is High, Moderate or Low
The Impact Rating does not “trump”
the Summative Rating
Nor does it carry a percentage weight
in determining Summative Rating
Instead, it informs the length and
focus of the educator’s plan
10
Summative Rating
A Matrix Establishes the Plan Type
Exemplary
Proficient
1-YEAR SELFDIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
Needs
Improvement
DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN
Unsatisfactory
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Low
Moderate
High
Rating of Impact on Student Learning
(multiple
measures
of performance,
includingincluding
MCAS
Based
on multiple
measures
of performance,
Student
GrowthGrowth
Percentile
and MEPA
where
MCAS
Student
Percentile
(SGP)
whenavailable)
available
11
Summative Rating
A Matrix Establishes the Plan Type
Exemplary
Proficient
1-YEAR SELF1 YEAR,
DIRECTED
NOT 2
GROWTH PLAN
RECOGNITION
2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
TWO-YEAR PLAN
GROWTH PLAN
Needs
Improvement
DIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
6-MONTH
TO ONE-YEAR
PLAN
Unsatisfactory
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
30-DAY
TO ONE YEAR
PLAN
Low
Moderate
High
Rating of Impact on Student Learning
(multiple measures of performance, including MCAS
Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available)
12
Summative Rating
A Matrix Establishes the Plan Type
Exemplary
Proficient
1-YEAR SELFDIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
A 2-year plan
Needs
Improvement
DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN
Unsatisfactory
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Low
Moderate
High
Rating of Impact on Student Learning
(multiple
measures
of performance,
includingincluding
MCAS
Based
on multiple
measures
of performance,
Student
GrowthGrowth
Percentile
and MEPA
where
MCAS
Student
Percentile
(SGP)
whenavailable)
available
The majority of
educators
13
Impact Ratings are based on
“District-Determined Measures”
 Are measures of student growth that are common
to grade levels/courses across the district
 Must include Student Growth Percentile (SGP) on
MCAS (the state assessment) for the 17% of
educators for whom it is applicable, i.e., “tested
subjects & grades
 Must take into account “Patterns and Trends”
 At least 2 measures
 Over 2 years
14
MA has framed District-determined
Measures as an opportunity
“…Selecting DDMs gives districts a long-sought
opportunity to broaden the range of what
knowledge and skills they assess and how they
assess learning. Districts will be identifying or
developing measures for assessing student
learning for educators in all grades and subject
areas, the results of which will lead to
opportunities for robust conversations about
student achievement, and ultimately improved
educator practice and student learning…”
- MA Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, spring 2013
15
Deciding District-determined
Measures engages educators
Teachers, teams, departments and
districts work together to answer three
critical questions:
 What’s most important for our students to learn?
 How can we assess it fairly?
 What can the results tell us about our curriculum
and instruction – collectively and individually?
16
The 8th grade English teacher’s
proposed District-determined
Measures
1. A fall and spring test of grammar
2. A pre- and post-unit assessment of persuasive
writing using a common rubric
3. A fall and spring sample of narrative writing
(short story or play) using a common rubric
17
18
A healthy
dose
of humility
from policy
makers
19
Thank you
I look forward to learning from your
questions, suggestions and
insights here in Chicago and
beyond
20