1. District-Determined Measures Planning and Organizing for Success Educator Evaluation Spring Convening: May 29, 2013

2. DDMs Higher Quality Student Data Better Teaching Improved Student Outcomes Opportunity for Educators  Good assessments benefit both students and teachers  Closely tied to one of the key goals of the new educator evaluation framework:  To promote student learning, growth, and achievement by providing educators with feedback for improvement. 1

3. Agenda  The Student Impact Rating  Revised Implementation Timeline  WestEd’s Role  Q&A  Strategic Planning: North Reading and Chelmsford  Q&A 2

4. The Educator Evaluation Framework Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory High Moderate Low Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 3 Summative Performance Rating Student Impact Rating  Everyone earns two ratings

5. Two Ratings Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Summative Rating UnsatisfactoryImprovement Plan Needs Improvement Directed Growth Plan Exemplary Self-Directed Growth Plan Proficient 1-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan 2-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning

6. Student Impact Rating Regulations  Evaluators must assign a rating based on trends (at least 2 years) and patterns (at least 2 measures)  Options – 603 CMR 35.07(1)(a)(3-5)603 CMR 35.07(1)(a)(3-5)  Statewide growth measure(s)*  District-determined Measure(s) of student learning comparable across grade or subject district-wide.  For educators whose primary role is not as a classroom teacher, the appropriate measures of the educator's contribution to student learning, growth, and achievement set by the district. 5 * Must be used where available (603 CMR 35.09(2)(a)(1))603 CMR 35.09(2)(a)(1)

7. Student Impact Rating Regulations  Why focus on growth?  Level playing field  Fairness  Achievement measures may be acceptable when the district judges them to be the most appropriate/feasible measure for certain educators 6

8. Revised Implementation Timeline  Commissioner’s Memo - 4/12/13  2013-2014 – districts pilot and identify DDMs  2014-2015 – districts implement DDMs and collect the first year of trend data  2015-2016 – districts collect the second year of trend data and issue Student Impact Ratings for all educators  Districts positioned to accelerate the timeline should proceed as planned.  Guidance and resources to support districts with the identification of DDMs are available here: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/ 7

9. Revised Implementation Timeline  Minimum Piloting Requirements  Early grade (K-3) literacy  Early (K-3) grade math  Middle grade (5-8) math  High school writing to text  Traditionally non-tested grades and subjects (e.g., fine arts, music, physical education)  If a district is unable to identify a DDM in the grades and subjects listed above, the district must pilot one of ESE’s exemplar DDMs to be released in summer 2013. 8

10. SPRING CONVENING MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION CAROLE GALLAGHER SUSAN MUNDRY SUSAN HENRY MAY 29, 2013 WestEd’s Role in Supporting the Identification and Development of District Developed Measures

11. Overview WestEd is supporting ESE with next steps in implementing the Commonwealth’s Model System for Educator Evaluation Two broad categories of work  Support development of anchor standards in almost 100 separate grades/subjects or courses  Identification and evaluation of promising measures, tools, tests, rubrics Work to be completed by mid-August 10

12. Grades/Subjects and Courses Grades/subjects and courses include:  ELA/literacy (grades PK-2; 10 HS electives)  Mathematics (grades PK-2; 11 HS courses)  History/Social Science (grades PK-7; 14 HS courses)  Science/Engineering/Technology (grade spans PK-8; 15 HS courses)  The Arts (grade spans PK-5, 6-8, and 9-12; 6 HS electives)  Comprehensive Health (grade spans PK-5, 6-8, and 9-12; 2 HS courses)  World/Foreign Languages (grades PK-7; HS Spanish, French, Latin) 11

13. Step 1: Collect Standards/Frameworks Identify and collect sets of grade- and course- specific standards currently in use in target grades/subjects & courses  From Curriculum Frameworks  From professional organizations within and outside MA  From states and districts across the nation  From known sources (e.g., RttT states, MET participants)  From contacts and referrals  From web searches 12

14. Step 2: Identify Panelists Recruit teachers and/or curriculum specialists who will develop Anchor Standards from the collected sets of standards/ frameworks  From Spring Convening attendees (referrals or volunteers)  From ESE recommendations  From WestEd contacts and referrals Target sample will be representative of the state Goal is 3-5 highly qualified panelists per grade/subject or course 13

15. Step 3: Convene Meetings 4 face-to-face meetings at convenient meeting venue in Massachusetts Panelists strategically grouped for maximum productivity and inter-group collaboration Will apply protocol adapted from similar work in other states and approved by ESE Outcome will be 10-15 anchor standards in each grade/subject or course 14

16. Step 4: Identify and Collect Assessments of those Anchor Standards Collect documentation associated with promising assessments (traditional and non-traditional)  From districts within and outside MA, other states  From test publishers or clearinghouses  From known sources (e.g., RttT states, MET participants)  Referrals from WestEd’s professional network Technical reports, web-based information, research studies, blueprints, administration or scoring guides, expert guidance Goal is minimum of 2 assessments for each set of Anchor Standards 15

17. Types of Assessments measures of growth that are currently used in Commonwealth districts, such as Galileo, BERS-2, DIBELS), and MAP tools developed by Commonwealth LEAs (e.g., MA Quality Performance Assessment Initiative); other LEAs (e.g., Minneapolis) or SEAs (e.g., CT, KS, NC, TN); or a commercial vendor (e.g., Pearson) achievement tests pre-post assessments interim assessments end-of-year or end-of-course examinations rubrics for evaluating portfolios or collections of student work, culminating (capstone) projects, or performance tasks or events screening tools observation rubrics or checklists 16

18. Step 5: Evaluate the Assessments Summary of key criteria  Validity- evidence of alignment (purpose, target audience, content)  Validity- appropriateness for measuring growth  Validity- evidence of technical adequacy (reliability, piloting, administration & scoring guides)  Fairness- accessibility to all, development steps  Feasibility- cost, administration considerations 17

19. Opportunities to Learn More Come visit us at our vendor table Contact Carole at cgallag@wested.org or Susan at smundry@wested.orgcgallag@wested.org smundry@wested.org 18