1. The New Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Regulations: Opportunities and Challenges MASC/MASS Joint Conference Karla Brooks Baehr, ESE
November 10, 2011

2. All implementation is local; ESE wants to support your efforts
Intended Outcomes
Deepen your understanding of:
The requirements of the new Educator Evaluation regulations
The challenges they present in implementing them
The opportunities they present for improving our schools
The resources ESE will make available to support effective local implementation 2
All implementation is local; ESE wants to support your efforts
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

3. Effective teachers and leaders matter
No other school-based factor has as great an influence on student achievement as an effective teacher.
Effective leaders create the conditions that enable powerful teaching and learning to occur.
Therefore,
Ensuring that every child is taught by effective teachers and attends a school that is led by an effective leader is key to addressing the achievement gap.
Attracting, developing, and retaining an effective, academically capable, diverse, and culturally proficient educator workforce is essential. 3
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 3

4. A 40-member statewide task force helped shape the new regulations
Educators matter; but too often evaluation of educators doesn’t matter enough
Too often principals and teachers experience evaluations as:
Passive: done to them rather than with them
Superficial: based on very little evidence or conversation
Ritualistic: emphasis on compliance and “dog and pony” shows
Missing the mark: not adequately focused on student learning 4
A 40-member statewide task force helped shape the new regulations
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

5. The new regulations are designed to:
Promote leaders’ and teachers’ growth and development
Place student learning at the center using multiple measures of student learning
Recognize excellence in teaching and leading
Set a high bar for professional status
Shorten timelines for improvement
The regulations apply to superintendents, principals, teachers, counselors, and every other position requiring a license

6. Every educator is an active participant in the evaluation process
Every educator uses a rubric and data about student learning
Every educator proposes at least 1 professional practice goal and 1 student learning goal – tams goals must be considered
Continuous
Learning
Every educator earns one of four ratings of performance
Every educator & evaluator collects evidence and assesses progress
Every educator has a mid-cycle review 6
Collaboration and Continuous Learning are the focus
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 6

7. When fully implemented, the regulations require
two separate ratings for each educator
MCAS Student Growth Percentile (SGP) Scores +
MEPA Gain Scores
District-determined, district-wide measures 7
Districts are required to determine how to recognize and reward educators whose summative rating is exemplary and rating of impact on student learning is high or moderate
Revised 10/15/2011
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

8. 4 standards of practice with rubrics defining 4 levels of performance
Principals & Administrators
Teachers
Instructional Leadership*
Management and Operations
Family & Community Partnerships
Professional Culture
Curriculum, Planning & Assessment*
Teaching All Students*
Family & Community Engagement 8
* Standards requiring proficient rating or above to achieve overall rating of proficient or above
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

9. The Structure of a Rubric A Continuum of Professional Practice
Standards
Indicators
Elements
Descriptors
of each Element at 4 performance Levels 9 9

10. D R A F T 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. Alignment
ii. Knowledge
iii. Higher-Order Thinking
B. Assessment
i. Assessment Design
ii. Application to Instruction
C. Analysis
i. Analysis
ii. Feedback
A. Instruction
i. Student Engagement
ii. Differentiation
iii. Learning Expectations
iv. Clarity
v. Materials
vi. Responsiveness
vii. Connections
B. Learning Environment
i. Relationships
ii. Social-Emotional Growth
iii. Routines
iv. Physical Environment
v. Behavior Management
C. Cultural Proficiency
i. Advocacy
ii. Diversity
iii. Perspectives
D. Expectations
i. Mindset
ii. Student Support
iii. Student Ownership
A. Engagement
i. Outreach
ii. Cultural Sensitivity
iii. Community Resources
B. Collaboration
i. Academic Involvement
C. Communication
i. Frequency
ii. Reporting
iii. Response to Families
A. Reflection
i. Reflection
ii. Goal-setting
B. Professional Growth
i. Professional Growth
ii. Expanding Expertise
C. Collaboration
i. Collaboration
D. Decision-making
i. Leadership
E. Shared Responsibility
i. Enrichment
ii. Collaborative Practices
F. Professional Responsibilities
i. Attendance
ii. Judgment
D R A F T
Here is how the current draft rubric for teachers is organized:
4 standards, each with 3 to 5 indicators.
Each indicator has 2 to 7 indicators.
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.
Each Standard
is defined by regulation
Each Indicator
Each Element
is described at each
performance level 10

11. Standard #1: Instructional Leadership Indicator: Evaluation Element: Supervision Descriptors:
Exemplary: Ensures that each educator has challenging and measurable professional practice and student learning goals and an effective system for monitoring progress.
Proficient: Ensures that each educator has measurable professional practice and student learning goals.
Needs Improvement: Ensures each educator has goals, but does not vet them for quality and/or relevance to their own and the school’s needs.
Unsatisfactory: Does not ensure that each educator has goals, or the goals are not of good quality.
Every district will be required to make use of rubrics that describe practice at the four levels of proficiency.
Our assumption is that most educators will be rated “proficient” overall.
Here is an example of the language in the draft rubric for principals: Standard #1, Instructional Leadership. Here the practice the rubric is describing one aspect of the indicator related to Evaluation at the exemplary, proficient, needs improvement and unsatisfactory levels. Instructional Leadership is described in the rubric as: “Provides effective and timely supervision and evaluation in alignment with state regulations and contract provisions.” One aspect of doing that has to do with goal setting.
ESE’s model will eventually include rubrics for at least six categories of educator: teachers: classroom, caseload (such as guidance counselors); administrators: principal, other school-based, district-level.
So let’s take a look at this rubric. During the “listening tour” we got some feedback about this example. Some thought the description of “exemplary” was not a high enough standard. Others thought the gap between “proficient” and “needs improvement” was too wide. We’d like to give you a chance to consider these questions.
I’m not going to solicit feedback here about how the Department might improve this rubric. Instead, I’d like you to consider the richness of the discussion you just had. Often the real power of a rubric is the discussion it generates among professionals as they tease out an ever-more-specific picture of what it takes to demonstrate real excellence and to distinguish in one’s own work between solid but not exemplary performance. We hope your brief conversation with your partner gave you a taste of that learning and the desire to replicate it among educator teams in your district.
We expect that most educators will be rated proficient. An exemplary rating will be reserved for educators who model practice at the highest levels. Rubrics that make clear the difference between “proficient” and “exemplary” practice are essential.

12. 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 12
Revised 10/15/2011
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

13. Putting the two ratings together13
Revised 10/15/2011
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

14. What are “multiple measures” of student learning?
MCAS student growth percentiles, when available
MEPA gain scores, when available
Other assessments comparable district-wide across grade or subject, “including but not limited to”:
portfolios
approved commercial assessments
district-developed pre/post unit and course assessments
School-wide and teacher-developed assessments (individual and/or team)

15. ESE is learning from 25 pioneers
Can this be Done?
10 Urban Districts from the Level 4 Schools Network: Boston, Chelsea, Fall River, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn, Springfield, Worcester
11 Early Adopter Districts: Ashland, Attleboro, Everett, Franklin, Greater Lowell RVTS, Mashpee, Reading, Revere, Wachusett, Wareham, Whitman-Hansen
4 Early Adopter Collaboratives (Special Education focus): BiCounty, Collaborative for Educational Services, Lower Pioneer, South Coast.
ESE is learning from 25 pioneers

16. Educator Self-Assessment Educator-proposed Goals Team Goals
Can this be done?
8 Features in the regulations that can support efficient and effective implementation
Rubrics
Educator Self-Assessment
Educator-proposed Goals
Team Goals
Unannounced Observations “of varied duration”
Educator Collection of Evidence
Formative Evaluation Rating for 2-year plans
Distributed Leadership: Peer Assistance and/or Review
We see good rubrics as key to success of the new regulations. Clear, specific rubrics – customized to different roles – will provide a shared starting point for educators and evaluators alike. Self-assessment and feedback will not “start from scratch” – the rubrics will provide language for starting to make the distinctions among levels of proficiency that are key to potent self-assessment and insightful feedback.
Having educators put into writing a thoughtful assessment of their practice and its impact on students – with the aid of straightforward templates and relevant models – will mean that essential work of evaluation will already be completed by the time the evaluator begins his/her work.
Similarly, having educators propose goals for improving their practice and student learning again means that essential work of evaluation built on the concept of continuous improvement will have already begun before the evaluator begins his/her work.
Requiring serious consideration of team, grade-level, and department goals is another key to efficient and effective implementation where common planning time becomes a vehicle for integrating supervision and evaluation into the on-going life of the school, integrated with school-wide improvement efforts.
Unannounced observations of varying duration gives administrators greater opportunity to make effective, efficient use of their time. No longer will they have to spend hours adjusting observation and conference schedules in the face of unforeseen absences and emergencies. They can make highly effective use of five to ten minutes of “free time” to stop into one or more classrooms for an unannounced observation, followed by brief, timely feedback. Of course, this will only work if the requirement for formal, announced, full-period observations by principals that is now so much a part of the current system is dramatically curtailed.
Having educator’s assume responsibility for presenting specific artifacts and evidence – individually and/or as a team – can also reduce passivity and an evaluator’s workload if the requirement is framed clearly and good examples of collections are developed and shared as models.
For the many educators expected to be rated proficient or exemplary, the formative evaluation at the end of year one of their two-year self-directed growth plan will mean little change from the current practice of evaluation every two year. Under the regulations, the formative evaluation rating can be based on progress on goals. The regulations also assume that the summative rating on a formative evaluation will be the same as the prior summative evaluation, unless there is evidence to the contrary. As a result, one can imagine an educator reporting progress on her own goals (or team reporting on team goals), and that information being sufficient basis for the evaluator to submit a formative evaluation rating.
Distributed leadership is another key to making these regulations work. One form of distributed leadership is peer assistance and review system. The regulations support unions and management negotiating to expand the role of teacher leaders in the supervision and, perhaps, the evaluation process.

17. Phased Implementation
Can this be done?
Phased Implementation
January 2012 – ESE issues Model System forms, templates, and guidance; RTTT districts begin collective bargaining at the local level
June 2012 – ESE provides guidance on district-determined measures of student learning, growth, and achievement
Summer 2012 – RTTT districts submit their proposed educator evaluation systems to ESE for review, including collective bargaining agreements
September 2012 – RTTT districts implement educator evaluation and begin to identify district-determined measures of student learning
By January 2013 – All remaining districts begin collective bargaining
May 2013 – ESE issues direction on gathering student and staff feedback; ESE reports to the Board on feasibility of parent feedback
By August 2013 – All districts submit plans for district-determined measures of student learning to ESE
September 2013 – All districts implement educator evaluation 17
Revised 10/15/2011
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

18. Can this be done? ESE’s Model System for Districts to Adopt or Adapt
Release Date: January 10, 2012
Procedure and rubric for superintendent evaluation
Procedure and rubric for principal evaluation
Rubrics differentiated for different roles, e.g., classroom teacher, caseload teacher, counselor
Contract language
Process, Timelines & Forms
A comprehensive Implementation Guide

19. Later additions to the Implementation Guide
Guidelines for
Developing and using multiple measures of student learning, growth and achievement
Determining low, moderate and high impact on student learning
Examples and Resources on:
Multiple measures of student learning
Determining educator impact
Ways to collect and use feedback from students & staff
Collecting and Disseminating Promising Practices at the local level

20. Supports planned for the Model
Orientation tools and resources
“Getting Started”
Regional workshops in January/February
For district teams: Superintendent, School Committee Chair/Vice Chair, Union President, Human Resources Administrator, 1-2 Principals
On-line, face-to-face, and hybrid professional development, including:
Self-assessment
Goal setting & educator plan development
Observation and collecting evidence
Networks of Practice
Eventually…a web-based rubric “library” of resources

21. Putting it all together: A Professional Practice Goal for a district’s administrators
We will ensure every educator has a challenging and measurable professional practice goal by:
Researching and practicing effective SMART team goal setting with the administrative team
Completing 100% of beginning-of-year goal setting conferences with each grade/subject team by October 15th
Seeking feedback from peers about the quality of our teams’ goals
Using mid-year formative assessment team conferences to help teams critique and revise their practice goal.
To do this well, agendas for district administrator meetings may have to be different

22. Putting it all together: Goals of a middle school music teacher
Professional Practice goal: I will collaborate with my colleagues in the music department to research, develop, pilot, analyze, revise and share 2 performance-based assessments
Student Learning goal: My students will be able to identify and apply music terms, symbols and definitions in the curriculum guide for 6th, 7th and 8th grade. Using a department-developed pre- and post-performance assessment,100% of my students will demonstrate progress, and 85% will demonstrate proficiency on the third quarter assessment.
Finding time for teams to meet will be both a
challenge and an opportunity

23. Six “Take Aways” (we hope!)
“Yes, we have a lot of work ahead of us – but what an opportunity we have!”
“This is going to require ALL of us to re-think how we do our work.”
“We’re going to need to learn how to develop “smarter” goals – and better ways to monitor progress toward achieving them.”
“We better be sure we know how the MCAS Student Growth Percentile works and can interpret and explain it!”
“Effective collaboration will be our key to success.”
“We can count on useful help from ESE.”

24. How do I learn more?
Visit the ESE educator evaluation website: Contact ESE with questions and suggestions: Study the MCAS Growth Model:
Kerry Callahan 24
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

25. Questions? Comments? Suggestions?
Thank you for all you do to serve the Commonwealth’ 25
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 25