Educator Evaluation System

1. Educator Evaluation System NEC and SEEM Workshop May 4, 2012

2. Presenters • Donna Martinson, Teacher, Parker Middle School • Elisabeth Shanley, Teacher, Parker Middle School • Joanne Fitzpatrick, Reading Memorial High School • Helen Sellers, Killam Elementary School • John Doherty, Superintendent of Schools

3. Agenda • 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM: An overview of the process for Board members and union representatives • 10:00-10:15 A.M.: Break • 10:15 AM - 12:00 noon: Guidance around the evaluation process and Smart Goals for administrators Feel free to ask questions throughout the presentation

4. RPS Educator Evaluation Wiki • Wiki with Resources • http://rpseducatorevaluation.wikispaces.com/

5. Let’s Take a Few Minutes • Take a few minutes to write down any burning questions that you may have in relation to the evaluation process from the lens of the collective bargaining process

6. Burning Questions

7. Burning Questions

8. Burning Questions

9. Agenda • Discussion of Educator Evaluation Regulations • Comparison to Our TAP • What is the same • What is new • How does this effect me as a teacher? • Next steps in the process • Questions

10. The Power of Teamwork and Collaboration • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc4UltkRJsw

11. Every Beginning is Difficult • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

12. Educator Evaluation Model System http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/

13. Educator Evaluation • New DESE Regulations approved on June 28, 2011 • Collaboratively Designed by • Massachusetts Teachers Association • Massachusetts Association of Secondary School Principals • Massachusetts Elementary School Principals Association • Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents • Department of Elementary and Secondary Education • Requires evaluation of all educators on a license • Designed to promote leaders and teachers growth and development • Designed to support and inspire excellent practice

14. Reading is an Early Adopter • 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 • Educator Plan with SMART Goals • Superintendent’s Evaluation Process • Principal Evaluation Process

15. TAP CommitteeA Key to the Process • Committee of Teachers, Building Administrators, Central Office Administrators • 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

16. Components of System • Focuses on Educator Growth and not “Gotcha” • Educators are partners in the process • Five Step Evaluation Cycle • 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 • Lesson Plans, Professional Development Activities, Fliers • Walkthroughs • Announced and Unannounced observations • Differentiated Approach • New Teachers • Non-PTS Teachers • PTS Teachers • PTS Teachers who need additional support • Use of SMART Goals

17. Components of System • Levels of Performance on Rubric • Exemplary (Exceeding the Standard) • Proficient (Meeting the Standard) • Needs Improvement (Progressing Toward the Standard) • Unsatisfactory (Does not meet standard) • Specificity of Rubric • Standards • Indicators • Elements • Four Standards • Multiple Measures of Student Performance (2013-14 School Year) • Use of student surveys (2014-15 School Year)

18. Continuous Learning 5 Step Evaluation Cycle • 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 Education

19. 5 Step Evaluation Cycle: Rubrics Every educator uses a rubric to self-assess against Performance Standards Professional Practice goals – team and/or individual must be tied to one or more Performance Standards Rubric is used to analyze performance and determine ratings on each Standard and Overall Evidence is collected for Standards and Indicators; rubric should be used to provide feedback Rubric is used to assess performance and/or progress toward goals 19 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Pages 4-5 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

20. Four Different Educator Plans • 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.

21. Goal Setting ProcessFocus-Coherence-Synergy District Strategy Superintendent Goals School Committee School Improvement Principal Goals Plans Classroom Practice Teacher Goals Student Achievement

22. Standards, Indicators and Rubrics • Standards (4)-Required in Regulations • Instructional Leadership (5 Indicators) • Management and Operations (5 Indicators) • Family and Community Engagement (4 Indicators) • Professional Culture (6 Indicators) • Indicators (20)-Required in Regulations • Elements (32)-May be modified, but most keep rigor • Rubrics • A tool for making explicit and specific the behaviors and actions present at each level of performance.

23. The framework establishes four standards of practice, with supporting rubrics defining four levels of effectiveness * denotes standard on which educator must earn proficient rating to earn overall proficient or exemplary rating; earning professional teaching status without proficient ratings on all four standards requires superintendent review Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

24. Model Rubrics: Structure Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 6 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

25. Model Rubrics: Vertical Alignment within Rubrics Part III: Guide to Rubrics Appendix C, pages 2-4 • Example: Teacher Rubric • Standard I • “Standard I. Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment” • Indicator B • “Indicator I-B. Assessment” • Elements 1 & 2 • I-B-1: Variety of Assessment Methods • I-B-2: Adjustments to Practice Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

26. Model Rubrics: Structure Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 6 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

27. The Model Rubrics are Aligned 27 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

28. Rubric Alignment, e.g., Goal Setting Superintendent Rubric (I-D-1): Supports administrators and administrator teams to develop and attain meaningful, actionable, and measurable professional practice, student learning, and, where appropriate, district/school improvement goals. Principal/School-level Administrator Rubric (I-D-1): Supports educators and educator teams to develop and attain meaningful, actionable, and measurable professional practice and student learning goals. Teacher Rubric (IV-A-2): Proposes challenging, measurable professional practice, team, and student learning goals that are based on thorough self-assessment and analysis of student learning data. 28 28

29. Alignment of Rubrics, e.g., Goal Setting 29 29

30. Exemplary “The educator’s performance significantly exceeds Proficient and could serve as a model for leaders district-wide 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 Education

31. Proficient “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 Education

32. Needs Improvement • 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.

33. Unsatisfactory • Educators whose performance on a Standard is rated as Unsatisfactory are significantly underperforming as compared to the expectations. Unsatisfactory performance requires urgent attention.

35. Example of Teacher Rubric • 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.

36. Example • 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 standards-based units of instruction consisting of well-structured lessons with measurable outcomes.

37. Example • Element A-1. Subject Matter Knowledge • 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.

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

39. Multiple sources of evidence inform the evaluation Evidence Standards Products of Practice (e.g., observations) Summative Performance RatingExemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory • Outcomes for Educator: • Recognition and rewards • Type and duration of Educator Plan R U B R I C Standard 1 Standard 2 MultipleMeasures of Student Learning Standard 3 Other Evidence (e.g. student surveys) Standard 4 Attainment of Educator Practice Goal(s) and Student Learning Goal(s) as identified in the Educator Plan Rating of Impact on Student Learning Low, Moderate, or High Trends and Patterns in at Least Two Measures of Student Learning Gains MCAS growth and MEPA gains where available; measures must be comparable across schools, grades, and subject matter district-wide Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

40. Educators earn two separate ratings Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

41. Educators earn two separate ratings Based on: Rating of Performance on each of 4 Standards + Attainment of Goals 41 Based on Trends and Patterns on state- and district-determined measures of student learning gains Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

42. Phase-in Over Next 2 Years • 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)

43. Three Different Initiatives? Or Just One?

44. Example of Three Initiatives In One • Common Core For Literacy has three expectations • Building knowledge through content rich non-fiction and informational texts • Reading and writing grounded in evidence from text • Regular practice with complex text and its academic vocabulary • Goal setting would be focused on • Increasing the amount of non-fiction and informational text used in the classroom • Increasing the amount of writing that focuses on using evidence from text • Increasing student engagement by using quality questioning techniques.

45. Examples of Three Initiatives in OneContinued • Classroom Observations Focus On • Engaging Students Directly with High Quality Texts • Quality of Questions and Instructional strategies used to engage students with a high level of key academic vocabulary • Assessing Student Work through Evidence of Speaking and Writing • Common Assessments Could Focus On • MCAS/PARCC • Student Analytic Writing which shows growth over time • Student presentations which shows evidence of drawing information from texts over time

46. Individual Reflection and Discussion What will implementation of educator evaluation regulations allow you to do that is really important to drive instructional improvement and student learning in your system? -5 minutes for individual writing; 10 minutes for table discussion

47. Reflection Questions • How does education evaluation relate to your strategy? • To what extent do different people in the organization (principals, teachers, school board members, community members) understand the relationship of education evaluation to your strategy and to realizing what you think is most important to drive instructional improvement and student learning? What’s your evidence for your assessment? • What are a couple of things you can do in the near term to help everyone in the system think about evaluation relative to larger goals for that work and system strategy?

48. How to Engage Educators NEC and SEEM Presentation

49. Engaging Educators FrameworkSource: Reform Support Network • Four Domains of Educator Engagement • I know • I apply • I participate • I lead • Each domain expects levels of mastery and involvement and different habits of mind. • We must intentionally engage educators across all four of the domains.

50. A Framework for Engaging Educators