

Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence National Institute
April 12 and 13, 2012





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
 Discussion
of Educator Evaluation Regulations
 Comparison to Our TAP
o What is the same
o What is new
 How
does this effect me as a teacher?
 Next steps in the process
 Questions
http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/model/
4


New DESE Regulations approved on June 28, 2011
Collaboratively Designed by
o Massachusetts Teachers Association
o Massachusetts Association of Secondary School Principals
o Massachusetts Elementary School Principals Association
o Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents
o Department of Elementary and Secondary Education


Requires evaluation of all educators on a license
Designed to promote leaders and teachers growth and
development





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 Goals
o Superintendent’s Evaluation Process
o Principal Evaluation Process




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


Focuses on Educator Growth and not “Gotcha”
Five Step Evaluation Cycle
o
o
o
o
o


Self-Assessment
Analysis, Goal Setting, Educator Plan Development
Implementation of Plan
Formative Assessment (Midyear or Mid-cycle)
Summative Evaluation (End of Year/Cycle Evaluation)
Rubric for Evaluation
Use of Artifacts for Evidence
o Lesson Plans, Professional Development Activities, Fliers
o Walkthroughs

Differentiated Approach
o
o
o
o

New Teachers
Non-PTS Teachers
PTS Teachers
PTS Teachers who need additional support
Use of SMART Goals

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 Rubric
o Standards
o Indicators
o 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)
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 Education10
Every educator uses
a rubric to self-assess
against Performance
Standards
Rubric is used to
analyze
performance and
determine
ratings on each
Standard and
Overall
Rubric is used to
assess performance
and/or progress
toward goals
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Pages 4-5
Professional Practice
goals – team and/or
individual must be tied
to one or more
Performance Standards
Evidence is
collected for
Standards and
Indicators; rubric
11
should be used to
provide feedback
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education11




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.
District Strategy
Superintendent Goals
School Improvement
Plans
Principal Goals
Classroom Practice
Teacher Goals
Student Achievement
School Committee

Standards (4)-Required in Regulations
o 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.
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 6
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education15

Example: Teacher Rubric
o 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 Rubrics
Appendix C, pages 2-4
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education16
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 6
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education17
“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.”
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 14
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education18
“Proficient is the expected, rigorous
level of performance for educators. It
is the demanding but attainable level
of performance for most educators.”
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 9
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education19

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.

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
A. Instruction Indicator
1. Quality of Effort and Work
A. Curriculum and Planning Indicator
1. Subject Matter Knowledge
Standard III:
Family and Community Engagement
A. Engagement Indicator
1. Parent/Family Engagement
2. Student Engagement
Standard IV:
Professional Culture
A. Reflection Indicator
1. Reflective Practice
2. Goal Setting
3. Meeting Diverse Needs
2. Child and Adolescent Development
3. Rigorous Standards-Based Unit Design
4. Well-Structured Lessons
B. Assessment Indicator
B. Learning Environment Indicator
B. Collaboration Indicator
1. Variety of Assessment Methods
1. Safe Learning Environment
1. Learning Expectations
2. Adjustments to Practice
2. Collaborative Learning Environment
2. Curriculum Support
B. Professional Growth Indicator
1. Professional Learning and Growth
3. Student Motivation
C. Analysis Indicator
C. Cultural Proficiency Indicator
C. Communication Indicator
1. Analysis and Conclusions
1. Respects Differences
1. Two-Way Communication
2. Sharing Conclusions With Colleagues
2. Maintains Respectful Environment
2. Culturally Proficient Communication
C. Collaboration Indicator
1. Professional Collaboration
3. Sharing Conclusions With Students
D. Expectations Indicator
1. Clear Expectations
D. Decision-Making Indicator
1. Decision-making
2. High Expectations
3. Access to Knowledge
E. Shared Responsibility Indicator
1. Shared Responsibility
F. Professional Responsibilities Indicator
1. Judgment
2. Reliability and Responsibility

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.

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 standardsbased units of instruction consisting of well-structured lessons with
measurable outcomes.

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.
Summative Rating
Educators earn two separate ratings
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, including MCAS Student
Growth Percentile and MEPA where available)
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education26
Summative Rating
Educators earn two separate ratings
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, including MCAS Student
Growth Percentile and MEPA where available)
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education27
Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative performance rating
Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education
28
 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)




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 Forms
o Planning professional development opportunities

September Inservice
o SMART Goal Development
or
“The” organizing initiative?
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education31











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
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education32











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

