1. Connecting the Model Curriculum Project to Educator Evaluation
August 2012

2. Overview: The 5-Step Evaluation Cycle
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

3. 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
This graphic illustrates the 5-Step Cycle: it is the foundation of the educator evaluation framework. Every teacher and administrator participates in a 5-step evaluation process.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 3

4. Every educator is an active participant in the evaluation process
Every educator proposes at least 1 professional practice goal and 1 student learning goal – team goals must be considered
Every educator uses a rubric and data about student learning
Continuous
Learning
Every educator earns one of four ratings of performance
Every educator and evaluator collects evidence and assesses progress.
Every educator has a mid-cycle review
1st: The cycle begins with the educator who is being evaluated – the teacher, guidance counselor, department head, principal or central office administrator – engaging in a self-assessment process, analyzing both past student learning and his/her own professional practice.
2nd: With his/her supervisor, the educator analyzes data from the self-assessment and develops at least two goals. The goals are translated into plans for the coming year with key actions and benchmarks for progress. For many educators, the goals will be team goals, e.g., a third grade team, or the U.S. History teachers at a high school. In fact, the regulations require educators and their evaluators to consider team-, department- or grade-level goals. The plans range in intensity and are determined based on the educator’s prior level of performance, how new they are to their role, and, in one case, their rating on impact on student learning.
3rd: The plan is implemented and evidence is collected.
4th: The cycle moves forward with formative assessment or formative evaluation.
5th: The cycle concludes with summative evaluation. And then the cycle starts all over again because it is a cycle of continuous improvement where evidence from the summative evaluation becomes data to use for self-assessment.
For most experienced educators whose performance is rated as proficient or exemplary – the majority of educators – the cycle is a two-year cycle with a formative evaluation, typically of progress toward goals, at the end of the first year. For educators new to their role or experienced educators who are struggling, the 5-step cycle takes one year or less.
Collaboration and Continuous Learning are the focus
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 4

5. Educators earn two separate ratings
Summative Rating
Exemplary
1-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN
2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
Proficient
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)
Summative Rating
Exemplary
1-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN
2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
Proficient
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)
ANIMATED SLIDE
This graphic provides a visual snapshot of the new Educator Evaluation framework. The matrix illustrates the two parts of the educator evaluation process.
Look first at the left-hand vertical side where it reads, “Summative Rating.” Every educator will receive a summative performance rating based on their performance. The rating can be one of four: exemplary, proficient, needs improvement or unsatisfactory. Now, look across the bottom of the matrix where it reads, “Rating of Impact on Student Learning.” In addition to the summative performance rating, educators will receive a rating of Low, Moderate, or High for their Impact on Student Learning based on trends and patterns of results from multiple measures of student learning gains.
The intersection of these two ratings determine the plan an educator will be on. For example, if an educator receives a summative rating of needs improvement, he/she will be on a Directed Growth Plan (yellow). Educators rated unsatisfactory will be on Improvement Plans (red), and educators rated proficient or exemplary will be on either 1- or 2-year Self-Directed Growth Plans.
click*
Today (and for the implementation of educator evaluation), we are just focusing on the Summative Rating for performance. The Impact Rating is not yet relevant; the Department will not be releasing guidance on district-determined measures until June 2012, and districts will use the school year to select their district-determined measures. Even then, since an Impact Rating requires trends and patterns from at least two years of data, the first student impact ratings for teachers won’t be available until after the year at the earliest. So today we are not considering the Rating of Impact on Student Learning, what we call Phase II of the Educator Evaluation Framework. Today we are just talking about the Summative Performance Rating, which is Phase I of the framework.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

6. 4 Performance Standards
Teachers
Curriculum, Planning & Assessment*
Teaching All Students*
Family & Community Engagement
Professional Culture 6
* Standards requiring proficient rating or above to achieve overall rating of proficient or above
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

7. Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice
I. Curriculum, Planning, & Assessment
II. Teaching All
Students
III. Family & Community Engagement
IV. Professional
Culture
A. Curriculum and Planning
i. Subject Matter Knowledge
ii. Child and Adolescent Development
iii. Rigorous Standards-Based Unit Design
iv. Well-Structured Lessons
B. Assessment
i. Variety of Assessment Methods
ii. Adjustments to Practice
C. Analysis
i. Analysis and Conclusions
Sharing Conclusions with Colleagues
Sharing Conclusions with Students
A. Instruction
i. Quality and Effort of Work
ii. Student Engagement
iii. Meeting Diverse Needs
B. Learning Environment
i. Safe Learning Environment
ii. Collaborative Learning Environment
iii. Student Motivation
C. Cultural Proficiency
i. Respects Differences
ii. Maintains Respectful Environment
D. Expectations
i. Clear Expectations
ii. High Expectations
iii. Access to Knowledge
A. Engagement
Parent/Family Engagement
B. Collaboration
Learning Expectations
Curriculum Support
C. Communication
i. Two-Way Communication
Culturally Proficient Communication
A. Reflection
i. Reflective Practice
ii. Goal Setting
B. Professional Growth
i. Professional Learning and Growth
C. Collaboration
i. Professional Collaboration
D. Decision-making
i. Decision-Making
E. Shared Responsibility
i. Shared Responsibility
F. Professional Responsibilities
i. Judgment
Reliability and Responsibility
The standards and indicators are defined specifically in the regulations. The elements are not.
Districts may add standards and indicators, but they cannot eliminate any; districts may do whatever they would like with the elements. 7

8. Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative performance rating
Unannounced observations are required; announced observations are not
Including
Classroom, School, District and State Measures
when available & applicable
Student and Staff Survey Data required in
based on ESE Guidance
by June 2013 8
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

9. Putting the two ratings together9
Revised 10/15/2011
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

10. Performance Ratings
Proficient: “Proficient is the expected, rigorous level of performance for educators. It is the demanding but attainable level of performance for most educators.”
Exemplary: “The educator’s performance significantly exceeds Proficient and could serve as a model for leaders districtwide or even statewide. Few educators—principals included—are expected to demonstrate Exemplary performance on more than a small number of Indicators or Standards.”
The new framework calls for four ratings instead of the two or three that most districts use today. Here is the definition of Proficient. It is expected that the majority of educators will earn a rating of Proficient. Earning that rating instead of Exemplary might come as a real surprise to many. As educators operating in a system with two or three rating levels, we are used to striving for and earning the highest rating. In this framework, we’re shifting this perspective a bit. Proficient is a rigorous but attainable standard, as demonstrated in the rubrics. It’s the rating most educators will earn while Exemplary is reserved for truly exceptional performance.
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 9 & 14
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

11. S.M.A.R.T and S.M.A.R.T.er Goals
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

12. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Karla Baehr “in action:” Let me bring this cycle to life by sharing an example of myself as a 2nd year social studies teacher in Methuen (41 years ago!) AS IF we had had this cycle in place (I can only wish we had had it – I might have done better my the students I taught then!)
Step #1: I would have identified a relative strength (unit development) and a substantial weakness (classroom management). In terms of student learning, I would have been concerned about the relatively large number of students failing US history and risking not graduating
Step #2: I would have proposed a professional practice goal relating to improving my classroom management, as well as a student learning goal. This hadn’t happened yet in Methuen, but the U.S history teachers might have already begun to develop common departmental quarterly exams and I might have proposed a goal for myself that my students’ performance on those common quarterly exams would be within the “average” range for all the US history teachers instead of at the bottom as they would likely have been in my first year given my problems with classroom management. In talking with my U.S. History colleagues we might have decided that we were all struggling with the new wave of students who were more adept with Spanish than English. Perhaps we would have proposed a team goal of improving the course passing rate for English language learners. My department head would hopefully have helped me refine both my individual goals to make sure they were specific enough to hold promise for actually improving my own and my students’ performance. He would have worked with the team on our goal for ELLs too. The goals would become the foundation for my Educator Plan for this year.
Step #3: Both my department head and I would have collected evidence. My department head’s observations of my teaching would have been focusing on classroom management, and he would have looked at a sample of my unit plans to help me take that relative strength and make it even better. I would have been gathering evidence related to several key items: outreach to families of the students who were struggling the most; my professional development efforts and my work with colleagues most focused on my classroom management and ELL goals; and also the results from quarterly assessments.
Step #4: I’d meet with my department head and out conversation and his feedback would focus on progress on my goals.
Step #5: Here, our conversation would focus both on goals and performance on all four standards: I’d be hoping for a rating approaching proficient in Standard 2: Teaching all Students. And I’d use the progress I made on my goals and the overall feedback as important information for my self-assessment as I began the cycle once again for year 3.
MA Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationMassachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

13. Step 2: Analysis, Goal Setting and Plan Development
Educators set at least two goals:
Student learning goal
Professional practice goal
(Aligned to the Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching and/or Administrative Leadership Practice)
Educators are required to consider team goals
Evaluators have final authority over goals
“During Step 2, the analysis, goal setting and plan development phase, educators set at least two goals. One must be a student learning goal, related to student achievement or growth. The other must be a professional practice goal that is aligned with the standards and indicators in the rubric.
“Educators must consider team goals, which are common goals they may set with a grade level or subject-area team at their school. The evaluator has final authority over educator goals.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

14. Rubrics as a Starting Point for Professional Practice Goals
Teacher Rubric At-a-Glance
I. Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment
II. Teaching All Students
III. Family & Community Engagement
IV. Professional Culture
Curriculum and Planning
Instruction
Engagement
Reflection
B. Assessment
B. Learning Environment
B. Collaboration
B. Professional Growth
C. Analysis
C. Cultural Proficiency
C. Communication
C. Collaboration
D. Expectations
D. Decision-Making
E. Shared Responsibility
F. Professional Responsibilities
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

15. S.M.A.R.T. Goals S = Specific and Strategic M = Measurable
A = Action Oriented
R = Rigorous, Realistic and Results-
focused (the 3 R’s)
T = Timed and Tracked

16. A Massachusetts “S.M.A.R.T.er GOAL” =
A Goal Statement +
Key Actions
Benchmarks (Process & Outcome) =
The Heart of the Educator Plan
In our model of the Massachusetts SMARTer Goal, there are 3 components.
Taken together, the goal statement, key actions and benchmarks are the heart of the Educator Plan.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

17. Process and Outcome Benchmarks
Process benchmarks – monitor plan implementation
Outcome benchmarks – monitor effectiveness of the plan

18. Guided Practice: A Teacher’s Professional Practice Goal
Goal Statement for Rigorous Standards-Based Unit Design:
Through my work on the Model Curriculum Units, I will design units of instruction with measurable outcomes that require higher-order thinking skills which enable students to learn the knowledge and skills defined in MA Curriculum Frameworks.
(Aligned to I-A-3)
You will need Handout 8a: A Sample Professional Practice Goal for a Principal for Guided Practice #3.
We will do a sample principal goal this time. Here is the Goal Statement this principal has written for classroom observation and feedback.
Again, on a topic that will be of interest to both principals and central office administrators. Principals as both evaluators and evaluatees. Central Office administrators as evaluators, certainly – how about as evaluatees, too? Why?
Read through the goal statement first: What are its strengths? What are its potential weaknesses (recognizing that some may be addressed in the key actions and benchmarks)?
Suggested discussion points:
S = frequency and impact of 10-minute classroom observations (“impact” on whom?).
M = 8 visits with feedback. Is “impact” measurable?
A = manage time…conducting
R = ?
T = NOT EXPLICIT WHEN THE 8-PER WEEK WILL HAPPEN AND BY WHEN GREATER IMPACT WILL HAVE HAPPENED.
With a partner, how would you revise the goal statement?
Share 18
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 18

19. Guided Practice: A Teacher’s Professional Practice Goal
Next Steps:
Personalize this goal to your individual work on the Model Curriculum Unit project.
Rewrite goal statement to be specific to you
Make it S.M.A.R.T.er
Key action steps
Process benchmarks
Outcome benchmarks
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

20. Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation
Resources
Massachusetts Model System for Educator Evaluation
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

21. ESE Homepage http://www.doe.mass.edu/
If you have not yet had a chance to download one of the guides, here is where you can find all documents related to the Model System: go to the ESE homepage and click on “Educator Evaluation” on the left side.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

22. Educator Evaluation Homepage
Now you are on the Educator Evaluation webpage. Go to the left again and click on “Model System.”
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

23. Educator Evaluation Model System
You are now on the home page for the Model System, organized by the eight Model System Guides.
Why did ESE develop a Model System for Educator Evaluation? The 40-person task force that created the Educator Evaluation framework thought it was very important that the state assist school districts in implementing the new regulations by putting together a model system that could serve as a starting point for every district. As a result, the regulations adopted by the Board require ESE to create a Model System for Educator Evaluation complete with protocols, contract language, rubrics and other tools and guidance.
The ESE Model System was informed by feedback from educators around the state, including input from eleven early adopter districts, four early adopter collaboratives, and over thirty Level 4 schools; as well as feedback from a variety of state associations and national experts.
District-Level Implementation Guide. Audience: district leadership, school committee
School-Level Implementation Guide. Audience: School-level implementers and the district leadership. Purpose: know the planning and considerations needed to support school level implementation. This is the longest guide and the one that is most useful for seeing what the new educator evaluation framework looks like when implemented at the school level. It was built from lessons being learned in our Level 4 schools and early adopter districts.
Guide to Rubrics. Audience: all educators (Note: rubric development was heavily informed by feedback from field and national expertise)
Model Contract Language. Audience: union, school committee, district leadership. ESE developed model collective bargaining language with the help of candid and detailed input and feedback from leaders and lawyers from the MTA, AFT-MA, M.A.S.S. and MASC, our state union, superintendent and school committee organizations. This is model language for teacher evaluation; model language for “Unit B” will be published by March 15th.
Implementation Guide for Principal Evaluation. Audience: District and School Administrators (informed by MESPA & MSSAA representatives)
Implementation Guide for Superintendent Evaluation. Audience: School Committees and Superintendents (Developed in conjunction with and endorsed by both MASC & MASS)
These six guides represent Phase I of Educator Evaluation implementation that RTTT districts will be implementing starting in Fall Remaining districts will implement in Fall 2013.
Part 7 will be released by July 2012, and represents Phase II of Implementation: Rating Educator Impact on Student Learning Gains through Trends and Patterns (using state- and district-determined measures of student learning).
Part 8 will be released in May 2013 and represents Phase III of Implementation: Collecting and Using Feedback from Students and Staff in the Evaluation of Teachers and Administrators (student feedback for both teachers and administrators; staff feedback for administrators).
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

24. Questions ?
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

25. For More Information and Resources:
Visit the ESE educator evaluation website: Contact ESE with questions and suggestions: Presenter: Preeya Pandya – 25
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education