Model Contract Language: The S tudent Impact Rating and DDMs

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