Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

 NEC and SEEM Workshop May 4, 2012.  9:00 AM - 10:00 AM: An overview of the process for Board members and union representatives  10:15 AM - 12:00 noon:

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: " NEC and SEEM Workshop May 4, 2012.  9:00 AM - 10:00 AM: An overview of the process for Board members and union representatives  10:15 AM - 12:00 noon:"— Presentation transcript:

1  NEC and SEEM Workshop May 4, 2012

2  9:00 AM - 10:00 AM: An overview of the process for Board members and union representatives  10:15 AM - 12:00 noon: Guidance around the evaluation process and Smart Goals for administrators

3  Take a few minutes to write down any burning questions that you may have in relation to the evaluation process from the lens of the collective bargaining process

4

5

6

7  Donna Martinson, Teacher, Parker Middle School  Elisabeth Shanley, Teacher, Parker Middle School  Joanne Fitzpatrick, Reading Memorial High School  Helen Sellers, Killam Elementary School  John Doherty, Superintendent of Schools

8  Discussion of Educator Evaluation Regulations  Comparison to Our TAP o What is the same o What is new  How does this effect me as a teacher?  Next steps in the process  Questions

9

10

11 11

12  New DESE Regulations approved on June 28, 2011  Collaboratively Designed by o Massachusetts Teachers Association o Massachusetts Association of Secondary School Principals o Massachusetts Elementary School Principals Association o Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents o Department of Elementary and Secondary Education  Requires evaluation of all educators on a license  Designed to promote leaders and teachers growth and development  Designed to support and inspire excellent practice

13  Our current system is comparable to new DESE model  Allowed us to give significant input into the process  Developed a network with other school districts  Attended professional development opportunities  Piloted o Educator Plan with SMART Goals o Superintendent’s Evaluation Process o Principal Evaluation Process

14  Committee of Teachers, Building Administrators, Central Office Administrators  Representation from every school  Compared current rubric with model rubric system  Reviewed model contract language  Will be involved in development of forms for September, 2012

15  Focuses on Educator Growth and not “Gotcha”  Educators are partners in the process  Five Step Evaluation Cycle o Self-Assessment o Analysis, Goal Setting, Educator Plan Development o Implementation of Plan o Formative Assessment (Midyear or Mid-cycle) o Summative Evaluation (End of Year/Cycle Evaluation)  Rubric for Evaluation  Use of Artifacts for Evidence o Lesson Plans, Professional Development Activities, Fliers o Walkthroughs o Announced and Unannounced observations  Differentiated Approach o New Teachers o Non-PTS Teachers o PTS Teachers o PTS Teachers who need additional support  Use of SMART Goals

16  Levels of Performance on Rubric o Exemplary (Exceeding the Standard) o Proficient (Meeting the Standard) o Needs Improvement (Progressing Toward the Standard) o Unsatisfactory (Does not meet standard)  Specificity of Rubric o Standards o Indicators o Elements  Four Standards  Multiple Measures of Student Performance ( School Year)  Use of student surveys ( School Year)

17 17 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

18 18 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Pages 4-5 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Pages 4-5 Rubric is used to assess performance and/or progress toward goals Rubric is used to analyze performance and determine ratings on each Standard and Overall Every educator uses a rubric to self-assess against Performance Standards Professional Practice goals – team and/or individual must be tied to one or more Performance Standards Evidence is collected for Standards and Indicators; rubric should be used to provide feedback

19  The Developing Educator Plan (Non-PTS Teachers and teachers new to a position) is developed by the educator and the evaluator and is for one school year or less.  The Self-Directed Growth Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated Proficient or Exemplary and is developed by the educator. When the Rating of Impact on Student Learning is implemented (beginning in ), educators with a Moderate or High Rating of Impact will be on a two-year plan; educators with a Low Rating will be on a one-year plan.  The Directed Growth Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated Needs Improvement and is a plan of one school year or less developed by the educator and the evaluator.  The Improvement Plan (PTS Teachers) applies to educators rated Unsatisfactory and is a plan of no less than 30 calendar days and no longer than one school year, developed by the evaluator.

20 District Strategy Superintendent Goals School Committee School Improvement Principal Goals Plans Classroom Practice Teacher Goals Student Achievement

21  Standards (4)-Required in Regulations o Instructional Leadership (5 Indicators) o Management and Operations (5 Indicators) o Family and Community Engagement (4 Indicators) o Professional Culture (6 Indicators)  Indicators (20)-Required in Regulations  Elements (32)-May be modified, but most keep rigor  Rubrics o A tool for making explicit and specific the behaviors and actions present at each level of performance.

22 Principals & AdministratorsTeachers Instructional Leadership* Management and Operations Family & Community Partnerships Professional Culture Curriculum, Planning & Assessment* Teaching All Students* Family & Community Engagement Professional Culture 22 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Revised 9/30/2011 * denotes standard on which educator must earn proficient rating to earn overall proficient or exemplary rating; earning professional teaching status without proficient ratings on all four standards requires superintendent review

23 23 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 6 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 6

24 24  Example: Teacher Rubric o Standard I “Standard I. Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment” o Indicator B “Indicator I-B. Assessment” o Elements 1 & 2 I-B-1: Variety of Assessment Methods I-B-2: Adjustments to Practice Part III: Guide to Rubrics Appendix C, pages 2-4 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Appendix C, pages 2-4 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

25 25 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 6 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 6

26 26 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 26

27 27 Superintendent Rubric (I-D-1): Supports administrators and administrator teams to develop and attain meaningful, actionable, and measurable professional practice, student learning, and, where appropriate, district/school improvement goals. Principal/School-level Administrator Rubric (I-D-1): Supports educators and educator teams to develop and attain meaningful, actionable, and measurable professional practice and student learning goals. Teacher Rubric (IV-A-2): Proposes challenging, measurable professional practice, team, and student learning goals that are based on thorough self-assessment and analysis of student learning data. 27

28 28

29 29 “The educator’s performance significantly exceeds Proficient and could serve as a model for leaders district-wide or even statewide. Few educators—principals and superintendents included—are expected to demonstrate Exemplary performance on more than a small number of Indicators or Standards.” Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 14 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 14

30 30 “Proficient is the expected, rigorous level of performance for educators. It is the demanding but attainable level of performance for most educators.” Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 9 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Page 9

31  Educators whose performance on a Standard is rated as Needs Improvement may demonstrate inconsistencies in practice or weaknesses in a few key areas. They may not yet fully integrate and/or apply their knowledge and skills in an effective way. They may be new to the field or to this assignment and are developing their craft.

32  Educators whose performance on a Standard is rated as Unsatisfactory are significantly underperforming as compared to the expectations. Unsatisfactory performance requires urgent attention.

33 Standard I: Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment Standard II: Teaching All Students Standard III: Family and Community Engagement Standard IV: Professional Culture A. Curriculum and Planning Indicator 1. Subject Matter Knowledge 2. Child and Adolescent Development 3. Rigorous Standards-Based Unit Design 4. Well-Structured Lessons A. Instruction Indicator 1. Quality of Effort and Work 2. Student Engagement 3. Meeting Diverse Needs A. Engagement Indicator 1. Parent/Family Engagement A. Reflection Indicator 1. Reflective Practice 2. Goal Setting B. Assessment Indicator 1. Variety of Assessment Methods 2. Adjustments to Practice B. Learning Environment Indicator 1. Safe Learning Environment 2. Collaborative Learning Environment 3. Student Motivation B. Collaboration Indicator 1. Learning Expectations 2. Curriculum Support B. Professional Growth Indicator 1. Professional Learning and Growth C. Analysis Indicator 1. Analysis and Conclusions 2. Sharing Conclusions With Colleagues 3. Sharing Conclusions With Students C. Cultural Proficiency Indicator 1. Respects Differences 2. Maintains Respectful Environment C. Communication Indicator 1. Two-Way Communication 2. Culturally Proficient Communication C. Collaboration Indicator 1. Professional Collaboration D. Expectations Indicator 1. Clear Expectations 2. High Expectations 3. Access to Knowledge D. Decision-Making Indicator 1. Decision-making E. Shared Responsibility Indicator 1. Shared Responsibility F. Professional Responsibilities Indicator 1. Judgment 2. Reliability and Responsibility

34  Standard I: Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment. The teacher promotes the learning and growth of all students by providing high-quality and coherent instruction, designing and administering authentic and meaningful student assessments, analyzing student performance and growth data, using this data to improve instruction, providing students with constructive feedback on an ongoing basis, and continuously refining learning objectives.

35  Indicator I-A.Curriculum and Planning: Knows the subject matter well, has a good grasp of child development and how students learn, and designs effective and rigorous standards- based units of instruction consisting of well-structured lessons with measurable outcomes.

36  Element A-1. Subject Matter Knowledge o Proficient-Demonstrates sound knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and the pedagogy it requires by consistently engaging students in learning experiences that enable them to acquire complex knowledge and skills in the subject.

37 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 37 Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative performance rating

38 38 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Summative Performance Rating Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Attainment of Educator Practice Goal(s) and Student Learning Goal(s) as identified in the Educator Plan Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 RUBRICRUBRIC Outcomes for Educator: Recognition and rewards Type and duration of Educator Plan Trends and Patterns in at Least Two Measures of Student Learning Gains MCAS growth and MEPA gains where available; measures must be comparable across schools, grades, and subject matter district-wide Products of Practice (e.g., observations) Multiple Measures of Student Learning Other Evidence (e.g. student surveys) Evidence Rating of Impact on Student Learning Low, Moderate, or High Standards Revised 9/30/2011

39 Educators earn two separate ratings 39 Summative Rating Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF- DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN 2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Proficient Needs Improvement DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Unsatisfactory IMPROVEMENT PLAN LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning (multiple measures of performance, including MCAS Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Summative Rating Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF- DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN 2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Proficient Needs Improvement DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Unsatisfactory IMPROVEMENT PLAN LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning (multiple measures of performance, including MCAS Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available)

40 40 Educators earn two separate ratings 40 Summative Rating Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF- DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN 2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Proficient Needs Improvement DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Unsatisfactory IMPROVEMENT PLAN LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning (multiple measures of performance, including MCAS Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Summative Rating Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF- DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN 2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Proficient Needs Improvement DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Unsatisfactory IMPROVEMENT PLAN LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning (multiple measures of performance, including MCAS Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available) Based on: Rating of Performance on each of 4 Standards + Attainment of Goals Based on Trends and Patterns on state- and district-determined measures of student learning gains

41  Phase 1-Summative ratings based on attainment of goals and performance against the four Standards defined in the educator evaluation requirements (September, 2012)  Phase 2-Rating of educator impact on student learning gains based on trends and patterns of multiple measures of student learning gains (September, 2013)  Phase 3-Using feedback from students (for teachers) and teachers (for administrators)-(September, 2014)

42 Student and Teacher Growth Educator Evaluation Common Core Common Assessments

43  Common Core For Literacy has three expectations o Building knowledge through content rich non-fiction and informational texts o Reading and writing grounded in evidence from text o Regular practice with complex text and its academic vocabulary  Goal setting would be focused on o Increasing the amount of non-fiction and informational text used in the classroom o Increasing the amount of writing that focuses on using evidence from text o Increasing student engagement by using quality questioning techniques.

44  Classroom Observations Focus On o Engaging Students Directly with High Quality Texts o Quality of Questions and Instructional strategies used to engage students with a high level of key academic vocabulary o Assessing Student Work through Evidence of Speaking and Writing  Common Assessments Could Focus On o MCAS/PARCC o Student Analytic Writing which shows growth over time o Student presentations which shows evidence of drawing information from texts over time

45  NEC and SEEM Presentation

46  Four Domains of Educator Engagement o I know o I apply o I participate o I lead  Each domain expects levels of mastery and involvement and different habits of mind.  We must intentionally engage educators across all four of the domains.

47 I KnowI Apply I Participate I Lead

48  I know how the evaluation system in my district works. I also know the rationale for the changes in policy.  I understand the observational framework used to assess my performance and I understand how it intersects with student growth measures.  I understand the rating system and how my rating information leads to different types of educator plans.  I know to whom I can turn for support in order to improve.  In short, the evaluation system is a set of clear signals I use to guide the improvement of my performance.

49  All stakeholders (SEA, LEA, Union) are responsible  Develop feedback loops for misconceptions o Surveys, Focus Group Sessions  Communicate, Communicate, Communicate o Guidebooks o FAQ o Website o Newsletter o o Information Sessions o Podcasts/Webinars  Train the Trainer Models

50  I apply what I know about the evaluation system to improve my practice and get better results with the students I teach.  I think through the expectations of the observation rubrics and apply those expectations to the design of my lesson plans.  I also use the information for other measures of student growth, to set expectations for my students, and to decide how to differentiate instruction.  I use feedback from observers and consider my strengths and weaknesses as a practitioner.  I use student data and other forms of feedback to assess my own performance and consider what to do to continue improving the results I get with my students.

51  Make resources and tools available for educators to use o Model lesson plans aligned to standards o Instructional coaching o Mentoring o Professional Development o Interim Assessments o Videos of high quality instruction

52  I participate in the development, implementation and refinement of my district’s teacher evaluation system at both the practical and policy levels.  At my school, I work with leaders and colleagues to set shared expectations for how evaluations will be conducted.  I collaborate with others to review the observation rubric so we can understand what it means for us.  I work with my colleagues to interpret student data to inform instructional decisions.  As a member of my union, I participate in union-management collaborative sessions to calibrate video teaching samples using the observation rubric.  I work with union and district leadership to reflect how the new system will change the way my colleagues and I will use our time in my school.

53  Feedback Loops o Surveys that gauge frequency and quality of feedback o Focus Group Sessions  Follow up on Feedback  Joint Union/Administration Communication Teams o Breaks down barriers and eliminates misconceptions  Identify teachers for additional roles and responsibilities o Peer Observation Pilot o Developing assessments for multiple measures o Tools and guidance with student learning objectives

54  I lead my colleagues to improve their performance and to improve the evaluation system as we go forward.  I am recognized as an excellent practitioner, whose classroom performance and student growth results stand out.  At my school, my principal and colleagues seek me out for my expertise.  I open my classroom as a demonstration site, and I am called upon to deliver model lessons.  I mentor new teachers and support other teachers as they develop.  At the district level, I collaborate with leaders from other schools, the union and district administration to improve the faculty’s understanding of how to improve the evaluation system.  With other leaders, I visit schools around my district and help others know, apply, participate, and lead.  I make sure that things are done with teachers, not to them.

55  Identify excellent practitioners and give them opportunities to lead o Study groups which focus on particular evaluation standards or development of assessments o Participate on school/district evaluation advisory committees  Establish a culture that accommodates disagreement, but does not accept the status quo

56  NEC and SEEM Workshop Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

57 57 Read the two pages on your own (about 5 minutes): By the end, underline one sentence, one phrase and one word that you think are particularly significant (Make notes along the way) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

58 58 In groups of 6-8 people:  Round #1: share the sentence; mark them.  Round #2: share the phrase; mark them.  Round #3: share the word; mark them.  Discuss why each of you chose the phrase you chose and any new insights you gained from hearing your colleagues’ reasons for choosing the phrase they chose.  Identify one phrase to share with the larger group. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

59 59 A Goal Statement + Key Actions + Benchmarks (Process & Outcome) = The Heart of the Educator Plan Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

60 60  Step #1: Use data to identify goal area  Step #2: Identify relevant elements from rubric  Step #3: Focus on essential parts of elements  Step #4: Draft the Goal Statement  Step #5: Add Key Actions and Benchmarks Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

61 61 Revise goal statement, key actions and benchmarks as needed BUT…….. Don’t obsess! Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

62 62 Proficient Performance on IV-A-3: Plans and leads well-run and engaging administrator meetings that have clear purpose, focus on matters of consequence, and engage participants in a thoughtful and productive series of conversations and deliberations. Establishes clear norms for administrator team behavior. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

63 63 The goal statement: is it S.M.A.R.T.? The key actions: Is each one tightly linked to the goal? What is missing to ensure effective implementation? The benchmarks: Is there a process benchmark? (track actions done?) Is there an outcome benchmark? (track results achieved?) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

64 64 Goal Statement: During , I will devote at least 75% of administrative meeting time to district improvement goals and get better at using appropriate strategies to actively engage administrators in developing and sharing ways to implement those goals effectively at the school level. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

65 65 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

66 66 The goal statement: is it S.M.A.R.T.? The key actions: is each one tightly linked to the goal? what is missing to ensure effective implementation? The benchmarks: is there a process benchmark? (actions done?) is there an outcome benchmark? (results?) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

67 67  Student learning and school/district improvement goals are not “new” to us; developing them as MA “SMARTer” goals with goal statement, key actions, and process/outcome benchmarks is pretty new  What’s really new are professional practice goals in which educators have to be explicit about what we’re going to get better at, not just what we are going to do. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

68 68 Goal Statement for Classroom Observation & Feedback: I will manage my time more effectively in order to increase the frequency and impact of classroom observations by learning how to do 10-minute observations and conducting eight visits with feedback per week, on average. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

69 69 Goal Statement for Classroom Observation & Feedback: I will manage my time more effectively in order to increase the frequency and impact of classroom observations by learning how to do 10-minute observations and by the start of second semester conducting eight visits with feedback per week, on average, that an increasing percentage of teachers report are useful beginning with at least 60%. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

70 70 In pairs:  Review the key actions and benchmarks: is anything important missing?  Identify two revisions and/or additions to the actions and/or benchmarks that will make this SMART Goal “S.M.A.R.T.er” Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

71  NEC and SEEM Workshop

72 35.06 (2) (a) (a) Each educator shall be responsible for gathering and providing to the evaluator information on the educator's performance, which shall include: 1) an analysis of evidence of student learning, growth, and achievement for students under the educator's responsibility; 2) an assessment of practice against Performance Standards; and 3) proposed goals to pursue to improve practice and student learning, growth, and achievement. (b) The educator shall provide such information, in the form of self-assessment, in a timely manner to the evaluator at the point of goal setting and plan development. 72

73 School Only 50% of the 6 th, 7 th, and 8 th grade students read at grade level Team 40% of our team’s incoming 8 th grade students read at least 2 grade levels below 8 th grade. 25% of them read at or below the 3 rd grade level Classroom 3 students are repeating the 8 th grade; 50% have IEPs, 20% are ELLs The majority of students report not enjoying reading, finding it frustrating and a waste of time. This frustration and these struggles carry over into content areas, making access to texts in science, history, and mathematics difficult. 73

74  Consider… o District, School, or Team Goals o Connection between student learning needs and areas for professional growth o Timeline o Focusing in on a particular Indicator or group of related Elements Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 74

75  Student Learning Goals: “specified improvement in student learning, growth, and achievement”  Professional Practice Goals: “educator practice in relation to performance standards, educator practice in relation to indicators” 75

76 We will create reading comprehension formative assessments and analyze the resulting formative data.  Specific and Strategic  Measurable and Monitored  Action Oriented and Agreed Upon  Realistic and Results Oriented  Time-Bound and Tracked

77 100% of the 8th grade team’s students will advance 1-2 reading levels by the end of the first semester, as measured by the reading comprehension scores on the DRA-2, so that by the end of the school year all students have advanced 2 or more reading levels in reading comprehension.  Specific and Strategic  Measurable and Monitored  Action Oriented and Agreed Upon  Realistic and Results Oriented  Time-Bound and Tracked

78 We will create reading comprehension formative assessments and analyze the resulting formative data.  Specific and Strategic  Measurable and Monitored  Action Oriented and Agreed Upon  Realistic and Results Oriented  Time-Bound and Tracked

79 Beginning in September, the Language Arts Department will create monthly reading comprehension formative assessments so that 100% of the ELA teachers are using them monthly, analyzing the resulting formative data, and modifying instruction based on those results.  Specific and Strategic  Measurable and Monitored  Action Oriented and Agreed Upon  Realistic and Results Oriented  Time-Bound and Tracked

80 Educator Evaluation District Goals School Goals Professional Practice Goal(s) Student Learning Goal(s) How can I manage my professional growth 80

81 School Goal 80% of our students will all read at or above grade level by the end of the school year 8 th Grade Team Goal 100% of the 8 th grade team’s students will advance 1-2 reading levels by the end of the first semester as measured by reading comprehension scores on DRA-2 Individual Goal Based on survey results, the % of my students reporting they enjoy reading will increase by 10% each quarter so that by the end of the year there is a 40% overall increase 81

82 During my daily lessons, I will implement strategies from the August 2011 district PD session on how to refine questioning. These questions will be captured in my lesson plans and reflection notes so I can get peer feedback from the ELA coach and my colleagues.  Is it aligned with his self-assessment and student learning outcomes goals?  Is it a SMART goal? TASK: rewrite Isaac’s goal  Specific and Strategic  Measurable and Monitored  Action Oriented and Agreed Upon  Realistic and Results Oriented  Time-Bound and Tracked

83 During my daily lessons, I will implement strategies from the August 2011 district PD session on how to refine questioning. By the end of the first semester, 60% of my students will respond to at least two higher order thinking questions (based on Bloom’s taxonomy) at the evaluation, synthesis and/or analysis levels each class period. These questions and the responders will be captured in my lesson plans and reflection notes so I can get peer feedback from the ELA coach and my colleagues.  Specific and Strategic  Measurable and Monitored  Action Oriented and Agreed Upon  Realistic and Results Oriented  Time-Bound and Tracked 83

84 84 In pairs, First, review Sample School or District Goal Statements; identify:  District/School Improvement Goal Statements  Student Learning Goal Statements  Professional Practice Goal Statements Next, identify which could be TEAM goals? Finally, choose one to make “SMARTer” back in your school or district Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

85 85 1. Back in your district, with your partner:  Refine the goal statement you chose to your context OR Develop another one  Draft 3 key actions  Draft 1 process benchmark  Draft 1 outcome benchmark 2. Exchange your draft SMARTer Goal with another pair 3. Work together to make each draft SMARTer so you can use the revised SMARTer Goal as one of the goals you propose to your evaluator for Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

86  Collective Bargaining Process for Areas Not in Regulations  Meeting with individual schools to discuss process further  Training for Primary and Secondary Supervisors on Process and Calibration of Rubric  TAP Committee Summer Work o New Forms o Planning professional development opportunities  September Inservice o SMART Goal Development

87 87 or “ The ” organizing initiative? Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

88  Adopting the new MA Curriculum Frameworks  21 st Century/Global Skills  Anti-Bullying  Professional learning communities  Examining student work  Data Teams  Project Based Learning  Common course/grade level assessments  Elementary Report Cards  Social Emotional Health  BYOD 88Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

89  This may be the most important initiative that you undertake in your district  Look at this as an opportunity to improve teaching and learning and educator growth in your district  Plan your strategy and process  Train staff on how to write and implement SMART goals  Use your special education teachers as a resource for SMART Goal Development  Collaboration is critical to the success of this implementation  Link this system to the common core and assessment development  Use the DESE materials  Adopt the model rubric  Transparent and ongoing open honest communication is critical  Develop a logic model on how you will implement this process  Involve your staff, school committee, and community early and often in the communication process

90

91  Reading Public Schools

92 92 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

93 93 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Pages 4-5 Part III: Guide to Rubrics Pages 4-5 Rubric is used to assess performance and/or progress toward goals Rubric is used to analyze performance and determine ratings on each Standard and Overall Every educator uses a rubric to self-assess against Performance Standards Professional Practice goals – team and/or individual must be tied to one or more Performance Standards Evidence is collected for Standards and Indicators; rubric should be used to provide feedback

94 94 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

95 95 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

96  Focuses on Educator Growth and not “Gotcha”  Five Step Evaluation Cycle o Self-Assessment o Analysis, Goal Setting, Educator Plan Development o Implementation of Plan o Formative Assessment (Midyear or Mid-cycle) o Summative Evaluation (End of Year/Cycle Evaluation)  Rubric for Evaluation  Use of Artifacts for Evidence o Lesson Plans, Professional Development Activities, Fliers o Walkthroughs  Differentiated Approach o New Teachers o Non-PTS Teachers o PTS Teachers o PTS Teachers who need additional support  Use of SMART Goals

97  Levels of Performance on Rubric o Exemplary (Exceeding the Standard) o Proficient (Meeting the Standard) o Needs Improvement (Progressing Toward the Standard) o Unsatisfactory (Does not meet standard)  Specificity of Rubric o Standards o Indicators o Elements  Four Standards instead of Six  Fewer “Formal” Observations  Multiple Measures of Student Performance ( School Year)  Use of student surveys ( School Year)

98 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 98 Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative performance rating

99 Educators earn two separate ratings 99 Summative Rating Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF- DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN 2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Proficient Needs Improvement DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Unsatisfactory IMPROVEMENT PLAN LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning (multiple measures of performance, including MCAS Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Summative Rating Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF- DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN 2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Proficient Needs Improvement DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN Unsatisfactory IMPROVEMENT PLAN LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning (multiple measures of performance, including MCAS Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available)

100 School Year School Year Non-PTS (Will be Non-PTS Next Year)Developing Educator Plan Non-PTS (Will be PTS Next Year)Self-Directed Growth Plan PTS on Year 1 of TAP CycleYear 2 of Self-Directed Growth Plan PTS on Year 2 of TAP CycleSelf-Directed Growth Plan or Directed Growth Plan PTS New to An AssignmentDeveloping Educator Plan or Self-Directed Growth Plan PTS on Year 1 of Alternative EvaluationWill Complete Year 2 of Alternative Evaluation, then new system in PTS on Additional Assistance Plan and will continue on it next year Directed Growth Plan PTS on Additional Assistance Plan and will not continue on it next year Self-Directed Growth Plan

101 EventDue Date Evaluator meets with Educators in teams or individually to establish Educator Plans October 15 Educator Plans due to EvaluatorsOctober 30 Mid-cycle for 1 Year Educator PlansFebruary 1 Evaluator completes summative evaluation report June 10 Educator signs Summative Evaluation Report June 15


Download ppt " NEC and SEEM Workshop May 4, 2012.  9:00 AM - 10:00 AM: An overview of the process for Board members and union representatives  10:15 AM - 12:00 noon:"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google