Presentation on theme: "Performance Evaluation"— Presentation transcript:
1Performance Evaluation Dan MurphyDirector of Educational Policy and ProgramsAFT Massachusetts, ext. 222
2Key ResourcesComplete regulations:AFT MA teacher evaluation web page:DESE educator evaluation web page:
3Implementation Timeline school year: All 35 Level 4 schools and a handful of voluntary “early adopters”school year: All RTTT participating districts (which includes nearly all AFT MA districts)school year: All districts in MANote: Implementation of the new system will be phased in over the next three years. Some parts of the system are to be implemented immediately. Other parts won’t begin untilor later.
4Key Features of Educator Evaluation Regulations Four performance standardsFour performance ratings pegged to rubric(s)Multiple sources of evidence inform ratingsAll educators placed on a growth or improvement plan determined by career stage and overall performance ratingAll educators follow 5-step evaluation cycleDistricts/unions must bargain systems that are consistent with requirements; option exists to adopt or adapt DESE’s “model system”
5Four Performance Standards Principals & other AdministratorsTeachersInstructional LeadershipManagement and OperationsFamily & Community PartnershipsProfessional CultureCurriculum, Planning & AssessmentTeaching All Students (Instruction)Family & Community Engagement* There are also indicators under each standard that must be followed. These indicators are spelled out in the regulations. Through collective bargaining, sub-indicators may be added or adopted/adapted from DESE’s “model” system.
6Four Performance Ratings Four ratings are Exemplary, Proficient, Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory (E,P,NI,U)Upon completion of formative or summative evaluation, a rating must be given on each standard and overallTeachers must be rated at least proficient on the first two standards to get an overall proficient or higher rating
7Performance RubricsDESE says districts must use rubrics that describe characteristics of practice at the four levels of performance (E,P,NI,U) for each standard/indicator/sub-indicatorDESE has released two draft model rubrics for use in Level 4 schools: one for classroom teachers and one for principalsSample rubrics for other educators (guidance counselors, caseload educators, etc.) coming laterDistricts may develop their own rubrics, too
8Multiple Sources of Evidence Major change: The new regulations expand the sources of evidence that can inform evaluations and ratings. There are three main sources of evidence:1. Classroom observations (unannounced visits required) and “artifacts of practice” (lesson plans, unit plans, other work products)2. Multiple measures of student learning and growth (see next slide)3. “Additional evidence” (see slide after next)*Important: No specific weight or % is required for any one source.
9Multiple Measures of Student Learning: What’s Allowable? Measures of student progress on learning goals set between the educator and evaluator for the school yearMeasures of student progress on classroom assessments that are comparable within grades or subjects in a schoolDistrict-determined measures of student learning comparable across grade or subject district-wideState-wide growth measures where available, including the MCAS Student Growth Percentile and the Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA).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*Important: No specific weight or % is required for any one measure.
10Additional Evidence: What’s Allowable? Evidence compiled by the educator, relating to:Fulfillment of professional responsibilities, such as peer collaboration, professional development, contributions to school community and cultureOutreach to and engagement with familiesStudent feedback by , following DESE guidanceStaff feedback (for administrators) by , following DESE guidanceParent feedback (possibly), following DESE feasibility study (July 2013)“Any other relevant evidence from any source”
11Educator Plans: Differentiated by Career Stage and Performance OverallPerformanceRatingDeveloping Plan (up to 1 Year**)Teacher without PTS or teacher with PTS new to an assignmentPlan developed by the educator and the evaluatorSelf-Directed Growth Plan (1 or 2 Years)Teacher with PTS rated proficient or exemplaryPlan developed primarily by the educatorDirected Growth Plan* (up to 1 Year**)Teacher with PTS rated needs improvementPlan developed by the educator and the evaluatorImprovement Plan (up to 1 Year**)Teacher with PTS rated unsatisfactoryPlan developed primarily by the evaluator*Upon completion of a directed growth plan, the educator must move up to proficient or down to unsatisfactory.**Length of developing/directed growth/improvement plans determined by evaluator
13Step 1. Self-Assessment (Three Parts) Analysis of evidence of student learning and growthAssessment of practice against performance standardsProposed goals for educator plan:At least one goal to improve student learningAt least one goal to improve educator’s practiceGroup and team goals encouraged(Note: DESE has released a model self-assessment form for use in Level 4 schools.)
14Step 2. Plan DevelopmentEducator proposes goals and actions for plan; evaluator approvesEvaluators and educators must consider team or group goals (e.g., by grade, department, or school)Educator plan will spell out actions educator will take to attain goals: PD activities, trainings, self-study, coursework, etc.(Note: DESE has released a model plan development form for use in Level 4 schools.)
15Step 3. Implementation and Evidence Collection Educator completes actions in plan; receives feedback and support (ideally!) from evaluatorEvidence collection is ongoing throughout cycleEducator compiles evidence that can be presented to evaluator(keep a portfolio?)Evaluator collects and records evidence from allowable sources: classroom observations, products of practice, student learning outcomes, professional development/family outreach activities, etc.(Note: DESE has released a model “record of evidence” form for use in Level 4 schools.)
16Step 4. Formative Assessment or Evaluation The purpose is to assess performance against standards and progress toward goals (a “check-in” before the summative evaluation)A formative assessment takes place mid-cycle for educators on one year or shorter plans (typically)A formative evaluation takes place at the end of the first year for educators on two-year plans (typically)An educator’s rating and plan may change as a result of a formative assessment/evaluation.
17Step 5. Summative Evaluation All educators receive a summative evaluation at the end of their cycle. Ratings are given on each of the 4 standards. These 4 ratings and an assessment of progress toward goals are considered in determining the overall rating.
18Determining Performance Ratings: An Illustration *Note: The relative weights of various components are not specified in the regulations; weighting may be bargained and/or left to the evaluator’s “professional judgment.”LearningSummative/FormativePerformanceRatingGoalsPractice+Standard1ClassroomObservationsRUBICStandard2Other EvidenceStandard3Multiple Measuresof Student LearningStandard4
19*Keep up-to-date at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ DESE’s “Model System”Through collective bargaining, districts/unions can develop their own systems consistent with regulations or adopt/adapt the model system. Model system will include:Model contract language and protocols—draft expected Oct or laterJob-specific performance rubrics—draft rubrics for classroom teachers and principals out now; others expected in fall/winterModel forms and tools (self-assessment, plan development, evidence log, formative/summative evaluation forms, etc.)—drafts out now*Keep up-to-date at:
20So, Do You Think You Have It? Look out, because here comes…
21Yes, a Curveball.A separate “impact on student learning” rating is required starting in orEvery educator will receive a rating of high, moderate, or lowRating will be based on “trends and patterns” in at least two state or district-wide measures (school/classroom/teacher-selected measures not allowed):MCAS growth scores and MEPA gains, where available“District-determined measures” comparable across grades and subjects district-wideCombination of performance rating and “impact on student learning” rating will determine educator plan assignment
22Evaluation Matrix (PTS Teachers) Starting in 2013-14 or later Summative Performance RatingExemplaryOne-YearSelf-Directed Growth PlanTwo-YearProficientNeeds ImprovementOne Year or Less Directed Growth PlanUnsatisfactoryOne Year or Less Improvement PlanLowModerateHighImpact on Student Learning(rating based on multiple measures of student performance, including MCAS Student Growth Percentile scores if available)
23Other Key Issues Who evaluates? Training/qualifications for evaluators Primary vs. contributing evaluatorsPeer assistance and review (PAR) allowed through collective bargainingTraining/qualifications for evaluators“Do-ability”: How will administrators and teachers find the time?The nitty-gritty: timelines, procedures, and formsResolving disputes—e.g., what if evaluator/educator disagree on goals or plan?Ensuring fairness, transparency, consistency, and due process
24Major Takeaways This was just a very quick overview—study up! Major changes: Use of role-specific rubrics; sources of evidence expanded; emphasis on self-assessment; evaluation is ongoing throughout cycle; “impact on student learning” ratingMany details/issues still need to be bargainedBe proactive: Start thinking about how to be a good advocate for yourself!!New system presents both challenges and opportunities