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:
What opportunities will this new
educator evaluation framework
provide for professional growth and
student learning in your district or
school?
3
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Agenda
 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
4
 Team Time
 Wrap-Up
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Priorities of the new evaluation
framework
 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
We want to ensure that each student in the Commonwealth
is taught by an effective educator, in schools and
districts led by effective leaders.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
5
The ESE Educator
Evaluation Team
6
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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.
7
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Three Key Strategies
Teach
Learn
Connect
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
8
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, DistrictDetermined Measures, Staff & Student Feedback
 Samantha Warburton, Project Co-Lead, Evaluation Training Program &
9
Vendors, Implementation Support, Resource Support
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Ed Eval Framework: Timeline
 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
10
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
ESE Resources
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
11
ESE Ed Eval Website
More information:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval
Questions:
EducatorEvaluation@doe.mass.edu
12
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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
13
Agenda
 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
14
 Team Time
 Wrap-Up
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
What sets Massachusetts apart?
Two separate ratings
Three types of evidence
Four common Standards
 Educator Evaluation
15
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Agenda
 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
16
 Team Time
 Wrap-Up
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Every educator is an active participant in
the
Step
2: SLG:
ELL students
evaluation process
master content
Step 1: Incoming ELL students
underperformed in Math &
ELA; Indicator II.A: Instruction
was an area in need of impr. for
ELLs.
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.
standards across
3 units.
PPG (TEAM):
Identify & pilot 3
instructional
strategies for
improving
comprehension.
Continuous
Learning
Step 3: Artifacts
(lesson plans, team
meeting notes,
teacher/parent
communication);
student work,
Step 4: Evidence showed
pre/post lab reports,
rising ELL student
writing assessments,;
performance + success w/ 2
17
4
observations
w/
new instructional
feedback; student
strategies; discussed
additional outreach
to
Collaboration
and Continuous Learning are the focusfeedback survey in
mid-spring)
parents re: homework.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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
18
Part II: School Level Guide (p. 14-22)
Module 3 and Workshop 2: Self-Assessment
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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
19
Step 2: Analysis, Goal Setting
and Plan Development
 The educator plan is based on S.M.A.R.T. goals.
20
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:
1. Observations and artifacts
2. Multiple measures of student learning
3. Additional evidence related to performance
standards
Evaluator provides feedback
Part II: School Level Guide
Pages 32-39
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
21
Three Types of Evidence
1. Products of Practice
Artifacts related to educator practice
 Samples that demonstrate educator performance and
impact
 Number to collect varies by educator
Observations of practice
 At least one unannounced
 Frequent & brief
 Constructive feedback
22
Module 5 and Workshop 4: Gathering
Evidence
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Three Types of Evidence
2. Multiple Measures of Student Learning
 Evidence of Progress toward educator goals
 Evidence of Performance associated with one or
more Standards
23
Module 5 and Workshop 4: Gathering
Evidence
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Three Types of Evidence
3. 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
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
QRG: Staff & Student Feedback
24
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
25
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
26
Multiple sources of evidence
inform the summative rating
27
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Summative Rating
Determining Your Educator
Plan
Exemplary
Proficient
1-yr Self-Directed
Growth Plan
2-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan
Needs
Improvement
Directed Growth Plan (1 yr or less)
Unsatisfactory
Improvement Plan (30 days to 1 yr)
*Developing Educator Plan: for new teachers & administrators
28
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
5 Step Evaluation Cycle
Continuous
Learning
 Performance Rubrics
 Self-Assessment
 Measurable Goals
 Brief, frequent
observations
 Evidence Collection
 Regular, timely
feedback
29
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Agenda
 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
30
 Team Time
 Wrap-Up
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
10-minute
BREAK
31
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Agenda
 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
32
 Team Time
 Wrap-Up
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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
33
Opportunity for Coherence
I. Curriculum, Planning,
& Assessment
II. Teaching All
Students
III. Family & Community
Engagement
A. Curriculum and Planning A. Instruction
A. Engagement
1. Subject Matter Knowledge
1. Quality and Effort of Work
1. Parent/Family
2. Child and Adolescent
2. Student Engagement
Engagement
Development
3. Meeting Diverse Needs
3. Rigorous Standards-Based
B. Collaboration
B. Learning Environment
Unit Design
1. Learning Expectations
1. Safe Learning
4. Well-Structured Lessons
2. Curriculum Support
Environment
2. Collaborative Learning
B. Assessment
C. Communication
Environment
1. Variety of Assessment
1. Two-Way Communication
3. Student Motivation
Methods
2. Culturally Proficient
2. Adjustments to Practice
C. Cultural Proficiency
Communication
1. Respects Differences
C. Analysis
2. Maintains Respectful
1. Analysis and Conclusions
Environment
2. Sharing Conclusions with
D. Expectations
Colleagues
1. Clear Expectations
3. Sharing Conclusions with
2. High Expectations
Students
3. Access to Knowledge
IV. Professional
Culture
A.
Reflection
1. Reflective Practice
2. Goal Setting
B. Professional Growth
1. Professional Learning and
Growth
C. Collaboration
1. Professional Collaboration
D. Decision-making
1. Decision-Making
E. Shared Responsibility
1. Shared Responsibility
F. Professional
Responsibilities
1. Judgment
2. Reliability and
Responsibility
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
34
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?
35
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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
36
Agenda
 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
37
 Team Time
 Wrap-Up
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Collective Bargaining &
Reporting Requirements
 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.
Part IV: Model Collective Bargaining Contract Language
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
(Appendix C and Appendix D)
38
Collective Bargaining &
Reporting Requirements
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
RTTT Districts
Adoption Rate
Adaption Rate
approx. 25%
approx. 60%
Approximately 85% of RTTT Districts used the model
contract language as their starting point.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
39
Collective Bargaining &
Reporting Requirements
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
40
Collective Bargaining &
Reporting Requirements
 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
41
Collective Bargaining &
Reporting Requirements
 Key regulatory components subject to review:
1.
5-step evaluation cycle
2.
Standards and Indicators of Effective Practice
3.
Three Categories of Evidence
4.
Four Performance Rating Levels
5.
Four Types of Educator Plans
6.
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 districtdetermined measures.
Questions? Please contact Ron Noble (rnoble@doe.mass.edu)
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
2-Page Overview of Educator Evaluation Regulations
42
Agenda
 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
43
 Team Time
 Wrap-Up
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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
44
Part VII: Rating Educator Impact on Student Learning
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Using District-Determined Measures of Student Learning
Summative Rating
Two Ratings
Exemplary
Proficient
1-yr Self-Directed
Growth Plan
2-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan
Needs
Improvement
Directed Growth Plan
Unsatisfactory
Improvement Plan
Low
Moderate
High
Rating of Impact on Student Learning
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
45
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
46
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
47
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Priorities of the new evaluation
framework
 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
We want to ensure that each student in the Commonwealth
is taught by an effective educator, in schools and
districts led by effective leaders.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
48
District-Determined Measures
 DDMs may inform both an educator’s summative performance
rating and impact rating
Summative
Performance
Rating
Student
Impact
Rating
Evidence



Evidence
Products of practice (e.g.,
observations)
Other evidence relevant to one or
more of the four Standards of practice
(e.g., student surveys)
Multiple measures of student learning,
growth and achievement, including:
o Measures of student progress on
classroom assessments
o Measures of student progress on
learning goals set between the
educator and evaluator

Trends and patterns in student
learning, growth & achievement
 At least two years of data
 At least two measures
 Statewide growth measures,
where available (including
MCAS SGP)
 Additional DDMs
comparable across schools,
grades, and subject matter
district-wide
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
49
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 20152016 school year
Quick Reference Guide:
District-Determined Measures
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
50
District-Determined Measures
What Support is ESE Providing?
 Identification of “anchor standards” for a sub-set
of grades and subjects
 Targeted for publication in July 2013
 ESE is overseeing the collection and evaluation of
quality assessments from MA districts and beyond
that will be made available for use as DDMs
 Exemplar DDMs targeted to be available in July 2013
Quick Reference Guide:
District-Determined Measures
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
51
District-Determined Measures
What Support is ESE Providing?
 Assessment literacy webinar series to build district
capacity to identify and/or develop DDMs
 All webinars will be archived and posted
 Webinar series will focus on resulting in useful products for
planning and implementation
 Supplemental guidance on the selection of DDMs and
the process of determining an Impact Rating
 Technical Guide A (April 2013) will focus on measuring growth
and selecting appropriate measures
 Technical Guide B (Summer 2013) will focus on determining a
Student Impact Rating
Questions? Please contact Ron Noble (rnoble@doe.mass.edu)
Quick Reference Guide:
District-Determined Measures
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
52
District-Determined Measures
Recommended Next Steps to Creating a
District Plan
 Identify a team of administrators, teachers and specialists to
focus and plan the district’s work on district-determined
measures.
 Complete an inventory of existing assessments used in the
district’s schools.
 Identify and coordinate with partners that have capacity to
assist in the work of identifying and assessing assessments
that may serve as district-determined measures.
Quick Reference Guide:
District-Determined Measures
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
53
The two ratings work together
54
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Agenda
 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
55
 Team Time
 Wrap-Up
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Training
“An Act Providing for the Implementation of
Educator Evaluation Systems in School
Districts”
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2012/Chapter131
Training
Requirement for all evaluators and all educators
who must be evaluated under framework to receive
“evaluation training program developed by the
department of elementary and secondary
education”
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
56
ESE Training Programs
 Training Modules for Evaluators
 Time: 11 hours (minimum)
 Content: Overview + Modules 2-6
 Audience: Evaluators and School Leadership Teams
 Facilitators: School- or District-level PD providers; vendors
www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/modules/
 Training Workshops for Teachers and SISP
 Time: 4 hours (minimum)
 Content: Orientation + Workshops 1-3
 Audience: All educators without evaluator responsibilities
 Facilitators: school-level educators (administrators or teacher
leaders)
www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/teachers/
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
57
Vendor Support
 ESE has committed $1 million in RTTT funds to
subsidize module training by approved vendors for
non-RTTT districts. Subsidies will go directly to
approved vendors who then offer services to districts
at a proportionately reduced cost.
 Information on approved vendors and subsidized
services will be available at
www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/vendors.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
58
Training
Reporting Requirements for Non-RTTT
Districts:
 Fiscal year 2014: Districts should designate some, if
not all, of their Chapter 70 foundation budget
allotment for professional development and Title IIA
funds to subsidize the cost of a training program
 October 1, 2013: Districts must publish an educator
evaluation training schedule
 November 1, 2013: Districts must submit a funding
plan for training to ESE via the Title IIA application
process
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
59
Training Resources
 ESE Guide to Educator Evaluation Training Requirements
(www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/TrainingRequirements.pdf)
 Quick Reference Guide: Training Requirements
(www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/)
 ESE Training Programs (www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/)
 Approved Vendors
(www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/vendors/)
Questions? Please contact Claire Abbott (cabbott@doe.mass.edu)
7
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Agenda
 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
61
 Team Time
 Wrap-Up
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Team Time
Question
Year 1 Strategic Planning & Implementation
Worksheet
62
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Agenda
 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
 Training
 Collective Bargaining and Reporting Requirements
 District-Determined Measures
 Team Time
 Wrap-Up
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
63
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
64
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Plus – Delta
What worked?
What would make
it better?
65
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Upcoming ESE Resources
 Guidance on Determining Summative Performance
Ratings
 April 2013
 DDM Webinar Series
 March 14, 2013 – December 5, 2013
 DDM Technical Guide A
 April 2013
 DDM Technical Guide B
 August 2013
 Exemplar S.M.A.R.T. Goals
 Summer 2013
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
66
Handouts
 Today’s Powerpoint Presentation
 2-page Overview of Key Features of the Regulations
 Quick Reference Guide: MA Model System for Educator Evaluation
 1- and 2-year Evaluation Cycle
 Quick Reference Guide: Rubrics
 Quick Reference Guide: Staff & Student Feedback
 Rubric-At-A-Glance (Teacher & School Administrator)
 Quick Reference Guide: Training Requirements
 Quick Reference Guide: DDMs
 Strategic Planning & Implementation Worksheet
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
67