Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Paul Toner, MTA, President Heather Peske, ESE, Associate Commissioner for Ed Quality Teachers Union Reform Network Conference November 1, 2013 Massachusetts.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Paul Toner, MTA, President Heather Peske, ESE, Associate Commissioner for Ed Quality Teachers Union Reform Network Conference November 1, 2013 Massachusetts."— Presentation transcript:

1 Paul Toner, MTA, President Heather Peske, ESE, Associate Commissioner for Ed Quality Teachers Union Reform Network Conference November 1, 2013 Massachusetts Educator Evaluation System

2 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Agenda for Today  History  Description of Massachusetts’ Educator Evaluation Framework  Focus on the role of student growth in the system  Lessons Learned (so far!)  Discussion 2

3 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education History & Context Massachusetts Context  2 unions (MTA/NEA and AFTMA)  About 400 districts (including charter schools)  1800 schools  79,000 teachers  950,000 students 3

4 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education History  Pre-RTTT: ESE begins discussion about re-vamping teacher evaluation to include student learning outcomes.  RTTT announced: 2009  Achievement Gap Bill: January 2010  MTA Annual Meeting: Yes, we should do RTTT.  40-person Ed Eval Task Force announced (Paul and Heather serve)  MTA unveils proposed Evaluation Framework (included student learning outcomes as part of a multi-measure evaluation): December 2010  Board approves Educator Evaluation Framework: June 2011 (includes much of MTA Framework) 4

5 Description of Massachusetts’ Educator Evaluation Framework

6 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education With its emphasis on professional judgment, the Massachusetts model gives evaluators more flexibility in determining individual performance ratings than they would otherwise have under a system that imposes numerical weights or values to individual components of an evaluation. In contrast to formulaic systems that calculate ratings based on set values or percentages, this system allows evaluators to be responsive to local context or individual needs, emphasize trends and patterns of practice rather than rely on individual data points, and better target feedback and resources to individual educators. All of these factors contribute to a more holistic, comprehensive assessment of educator practice that is designed to promote an ongoing cycle of continuous improvement. This system also assumes at its heart that educators are professionals with critical knowledge, skills, and judgment necessary to make each and every evaluation meaningful and productive. --ESE Guidance

7 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education MA Evaluation Framework is Unique “Formulaic or numerical processes that calculate outcome ratings and preclude the application of professional judgment are inconsistent with the letter and the spirit of the evaluation framework.” --ESE Guidance

8 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education The Educator Evaluation Framework 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 8

9 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 9

10 Summative Performance Rating Practice Learning Engagement Summative/ Formative Evaluation Rating Curriculum, Planning, Assessment Practice Goal Teaching All Students Family Engagement Professional Culture Student Learning Goal Inform judgments about Sources of Evidence To determine the 10

11 The Role of Student Growth

12 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 12

13 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Student Impact Rating  Evaluators must assign a rating based on trends (at least 2 years) and patterns (at least 2 measures)  Options:  Statewide growth measure(s) must be used, where available (MCAS SGP for math and ELA, grades 3- 10)  District-determined Measure(s) of student learning comparable across grade or subject district-wide (can be off-the-shelf or teacher or district-created or chosen from exemplars from ESE). 13

14 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 14

15 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education DDM Key Questions  Is the measure aligned to content?  Does it assess what the educators intend to teach and what’s most important for students to learn?  Is the measure informative?  Do the results tell educators whether students are making the desired progress, falling short, or excelling?  Do the results provide valuable information to schools and districts about their educators? 15

16 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education DDMs: 4 Key Messages 1.DDMs are part of a multidimensional framework.  Decisions about an educator’s impact or effectiveness will never be based of the results of a single DDM. 2.Focus is on students, not just educators.  DDMs must yield information that will be useful to educators in improving student outcomes. 3.This is about building capacity.  DDMs provide districts a good reason to consider ways to refine and improve existing assessment practices. 4.Teachers have the necessary skills to lead the process of identifying DDMs – You can do this!  Many districts will have success leveraging teacher- developed assessments to develop DDMs. 16

17 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Lessons Learned (so far!)  Educators must be at the table.  Trust is critical.  Leadership is critical.  Sometimes, we disagree without being disagreeable.  Sometimes, we have to have a sense of humor. 17

18 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Sense of Humor: “I owe you a bier!” 18

19 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Lessons Learned (so far!), cont’d…  We both have stakeholders to whom we must respond.  Sometimes, we have to compromise.  The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good.  The outcomes will be better if we work together. 19

20 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Don’t let “perfect” be the enemy of “good.” 20

21 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education And finally,  The outcomes will be better if we work together. 21

22 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Resources  ESE website on Educator Evaluation   MTA website on Educator Evaluation and Toolkit  aluation_guidance.aspx aluation_guidance.aspx  aspx aspx 22

23 Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Discussion and Thanks!  Paul Toner, President, MTA   (office line)  Heather Peske, Associate Commissioner for Educator Quality, ESE (Massachusetts)   (cell) 23


Download ppt "Paul Toner, MTA, President Heather Peske, ESE, Associate Commissioner for Ed Quality Teachers Union Reform Network Conference November 1, 2013 Massachusetts."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google