1. Educator Evaluation 101: A Special Overview Session for Educator Preparation Programs May 2013

2. Welcome Please sit together as a team with your sponsoring organization Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 2

3. Educator Effectiveness Pipeline 3 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

4. Agenda for Today’s Session  Overview of the Statewide and National Perspective  Overview of the Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework  Connections between Educator Evaluation and Educator Preparation  Overview of Resources  Q&A 4 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

5. Intended Outcomes  Know the key terms, steps and components of the educator evaluation framework  Articulate the critical information your candidates must know about educator evaluation as they transition from preparation to employment  Understand the structure and content of the model system performance rubric for teachers and administrators 5 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

6. Intended Outcomes (continued)  Determine the connections between educator preparation and educator evaluation, including the connections between effectiveness ratings for educators and program accountability  Create a “take-back” packet to share with others in your preparation program and/or candidates  Know how to find additional resources about Educator Evaluation and how to use them Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 6

7. Session Logistics  Norms  Breaks  Tabletop Parking Lots Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 7

8. The Shifting Landscape The competition for talent Human capital practices across sectors Multidimensional response needed It’s not “business as usual” anymore  U.S. Department of Education most recent TIF awards 8

9. Teacher Evaluation: The National Picture  32 states + DC have made some change to their state teacher evaluation policy in the last three years. Out of these, only 9 are silent on the requirement to include objective evidence of student learning.  23 states + DC include objective evidence of student learning in the form of growth and/or value-added data  17 states + DC have adopted legislation that specifically requires that student achievement and/or student growth will “significantly” inform teacher evaluations.  18 states + DC have policy in place that makes teachers eligible for dismissal based on teacher evaluation results. In only 13 of those states teacher evaluations are explicitly tied to student performance. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 9 Source: National Council for Teacher Quality. State of the States: Trends early lessons on teacher evaluation and effectiveness policies. (2011). Washington, D.C.

10. Teacher Evaluation: The National Picture  Three state-level approaches to teacher evaluation: o Single state-mandated evaluation system (e.g. DE, TN) o Optional state-created model framework; flexibility for districts in implementation (e.g. MA, RI) o General state guidance to districts on meeting state requirements with lots of local flexibility (e.g. NY, WA)  Common features: o Annual evaluation cycle o Use of multiple measures o Student learning as a “significant” factor in evaluation Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 10 Source: Center for Great Teachers and Leaders. Databases on State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies. (2013). Washington, D.C.

11. Principal Evaluation: The National Picture of When Legislation was Passed Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 11 Source: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. State Policies on Principal Evaluation: Trends in Changing Landscape. (2012). Washington, D.C.

12. Principal Evaluation: The National Perspective  Implementation in RTTT States o 4 states mandate statewide systems o 4 states mandate the implementation of a state- developed system with local control granted over some components of the system o 10 states mandate a minimum framework on which districts may base their own models 12

13. 13  Two separate ratings  Three types of evidence  Four common Standards  Educator Evaluation 13 What sets Massachusetts apart? Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

14. Overview of the Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 14

15. What is the current level of readiness around integrating the new MA evaluation system into within your educator preparation program? A.We’re already doing it B.We’re planning on doing it C.We’re thinking about doing it D.It hasn’t been on our radar, not yet Identifying Program Readiness 15

16. Judging Candidate Readiness  Professional Goal Setting  Self-reflection against a performance standard  Collecting evidence related to a focused goal  Analyzing student data 16

17. Overall, what is the skill level of your candidates in the area of: Professional Goal setting A.High B.Moderate C.Low 17

18. Overall, what is the skill level of your candidates in the area of: Self-reflection against a performance standard A.High B.Moderate C.Low 18

19. Overall, what is the skill level of your candidates in the area of: Providing evidence related to a focused goal A.High B.Moderate C.Low 19

20. Overall, what is the skill level of your candidates in the area of: Analyzing student data A.High B.Moderate C.Low 20

21. 21 Collaborative Development of the Educator Evaluation Framework Race to the Top (August 2010) (with district and local union agreement) Task Force Report (March 2011) (wide representation from the field, Listening Tour) New Regulations (June 2011) (500+ public comments) Model System (January 2012) (collaboration with Level 4 schools, Early Adopter districts, unions and state associations) Building Effective Educators

22. Priorities of the new evaluation framework Place Student Learning at the Center – Student learning is central to the evaluation and development of educators Promote Growth and Development – Provide all educators with feedback and opportunities that support continuous growth and improvement through collaboration Recognize Excellence – Encourage districts to recognize and reward excellence in teaching and leadership Set a High Bar for Tenure – Entrants to the teaching force must demonstrate Proficient performance on all standards within three years to earn Professional Teacher Status Shorten Timelines for Improvement – Educators who are not rated Proficient face accelerated timelines for improvement Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 22 We want to ensure that each student in the Commonwealth is taught by an effective educator, in schools and districts led by effective leaders.

23. Key Components of the New Evaluation Framework  Summative Performance Rating o New Performance Standards & Indicators o Four Plans  Impact Rating on Student Performance  5-Step Cycle Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 23

24. Everyone earns two ratings Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory High Moderate Low Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 24 Summative Performance Rating Impact Rating on Student Performance *Most districts will not begin issuing Impact Ratings before the 2014-2015 school year.

25. Summative Performance Rating Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Rating reflects:  Performance based on Standards and Indicators of Effective Practice  Progress toward educator goals Evidence includes: 1.Multiple measures of student learning, growth and achievement 2.Judgments based on observations and artifacts of professional practice 3.Additional evidence relevant to Standards (student/staff feedback) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 25 Summative Performance Rating

26. 4 Performance Levels Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 26 Summative Performance Rating

27. 4 Performance Levels Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 27

28. 28 4 Standards of Effective Practice *Standards requiring Proficient rating or above to achieve overall Summative Rating of Proficient or above Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education School & District Administrators Teachers & Specialized Instructional Support Personnel Instructional Leadership* Curriculum, Planning & Assessment* Management & OperationsTeaching All Students* Family & Community Engagement Professional Culture

29. 29 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 B. Assessment C. Analysis A.Instruction B.Learning Environment C.Cultural Proficiency D. Expectations A.Engagement B. Collaboration C. Communication A.Reflection B. Professional Growth C. Collaboration D. Decision-making E. Shared Responsibility F. Professional Responsibilities Summative Performance Rating

30. 30 Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice (with ESE Model Rubric elements) I. Curriculum, Planning, & Assessment II. Teaching All Students III. Family & Community Engagement IV. Professional Culture A.Curriculum and Planning 1.Subject Matter Knowledge 2.Child and Adolescent Development 3.Rigorous Standards-Based Unit Design 4.Well-Structured Lessons B. Assessment 1.Variety of Assessment Methods 2.Adjustments to Practice C. Analysis 1.Analysis and Conclusions 2.Sharing Conclusions with Colleagues 3.Sharing Conclusions with Students A.Instruction 1.Quality and Effort of Work 2.Student Engagement 3.Meeting Diverse Needs B. Learning Environment 1.Safe Learning Environment 2.Collaborative Learning Environment 3.Student Motivation C. Cultural Proficiency 1.Respects Differences 2.Maintains Respectful Environment D. Expectations 1.Clear Expectations 2.High Expectations 3.Access to Knowledge A. Engagement 1.Parent/Family Engagement B. Collaboration 1.Learning Expectations 2.Curriculum Support C. Communication 1.Two-Way Communication 2.Culturally Proficient Communication A.Reflection 1.Reflective Practice 2.Goal Setting B. Professional Growth 1.Professional Learning and Growth C. Collaboration 1.Professional Collaboration D. Decision-making 1.Decision-Making E. Shared Responsibility 1.Shared Responsibility F. Professional Responsibilities 1.Judgment 2.Reliability and Responsibility

31. 31 Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice (with ESE Model Rubric elements) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

32. Four Model System Rubrics  Similarities across rubrics underscore common responsibilities and understandings  Role-Specific Indicators can supplement rubrics to provide differentiation by role Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 32 Superintendent Rubric (District-Level Administrators) Principal Rubric (School-Level Administrators) Classroom Teacher Rubric Specialized Instructional Support Personnel Rubric Summative Performance Rating

33. Four Standards of Practice + Progress Toward Educator Goals Exemplary – Proficient – Needs Improvement -- Unsatisfactory Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 33 Summative Performance Rating

34. Summative Rating Determines Your Educator Plan Summative Rating Exemplary 1-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan 2-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan Proficient Needs Improvement Directed Growth Plan UnsatisfactoryImprovement Plan *Developing Educator Plan: for new teachers & administrators Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 34

35. Four Types of Educator Plans  Developing Educator Plan For educators without Professional Teaching Status, administrators in the first three years in a district, or at the discretion of an evaluator for an educator in a new assignment; one school year or less in length  Self-Directed Growth Plan For experienced educators rated Proficient or Exemplary on their last evaluation; these plans can be one or two school years in length  Directed Growth Plan For educators rated Needs Improvement on their last evaluation; up to one school year in length  Improvement Plan For educators rated Unsatisfactory on their last evaluation; min. of 30 calendar days, up to one school year in length Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 35

36. Student Impact Rating Rating reflects:  At least 2 years of data from which trends and patterns can be identified  Multiple measures of student learning, growth & achievement Evidence must include:  State-wide growth measures, where available (e.g. MCAS student growth percentiles, ACCESS scores)  District-determined measures comparable across the district for all educators in the same grade or content area High Moderate Low Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 36 Impact Rating on Student Performance *Most districts will not begin issuing Impact Ratings before the 2015-2016 school year.

37. Student Impact Rating Determines Plan Duration Summative Rating Exemplary 1-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan 2-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan Proficient Needs Improvement Directed Growth Plan UnsatisfactoryImprovement Plan LowModerateHigh Rating of Impact on Student Learning Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 37 Impact Rating on Student Performance

38. Student Impact Rating  The Student Impact Rating must be based on at least 2 years of data across multiple measures, and therefore is unlikely to be issued until the 2015-2016 school year  Districts will begin identifying and piloting district- determined measures* in 2013 * For more information on district-determined measures, see Part VII: Rating Educator Impact on Student Learning Using District-Determined Measures of Student Learning Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 38 Impact Rating on Student Performance

39. 39 5 Step Evaluation Cycle Continuous Learning  Every educator is an active participant in their own evaluation  Process promotes collaboration and continuous learning Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

40. Step 1: Self-Assessment  Educators self-assess their performance using: o Student data, and o Performance rubric ̶Based on the Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice and/or Administrative Leadership  Educators propose goals related to their professional practice and student learning needs Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 40 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 14-22 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 14-22

41. Step 2: Analysis, Goal Setting and Plan Development  Educators set S.M.A.R.T. goals: o Student learning goal o Professional practice goal (Aligned to the Standards and Indicators of Effective Practice)  Educators are required to consider team goals  Evaluators have final authority over goals Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 41 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 23-31 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 23-31

42. 42 A “S.M.A.R.T.er GOAL” A Goal Statement + Key Actions + Benchmarks (Process & Outcome) = Educator Plan Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

43. Step 3: Implementation of the Plan  Educator completes the planned action steps of his/her plan  Educator and evaluator collect evidence of practice and goal progress, including: o Multiple measures of student learning o Observations and artifacts o Additional evidence related to performance standards  Evaluator provides feedback Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 43 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 32-39 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 32-39

44. Strategic Evidence Collection  Prioritize based on goals and focus areas  Quality not quantity  Artifacts should be “naturally occurring” sources of evidence (e.g. lesson plans)  Consider common artifacts for which all educators are responsible Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 44

45. Observations 45  The regulations define Proficient practice with regard to evaluation as including “frequent unannounced visits to classrooms” followed by “targeted and constructive feedback to teachers” (604 CMR 35.04, “Standards and Indicators of Effective Administrative Leadership Practice)  The Model System recommends short, frequent unannounced observations for all educators, as well as at least one announced observation for non-PTS and struggling educators.

46. Step 4: Formative Assessment/ Evaluation  Occurs mid-way through the 5-Step Cycle o Typically Jan/Feb for educators on a 1-year plan (formative assessment) o Typically May/June for educators on a 2-year plan (formative evaluation)  Educator and Evaluator review evidence and assess progress on educator’s goals Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 46 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 40-47 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 40-47

47. Step 5: Summative Evaluation  Evaluator determines an overall summative rating of performance based on: o Comprehensive picture of practice captured through multiple sources of evidence  Summative Performance Rating reflects: o Ratings on each of the four Standards o Progress toward goals Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 47 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 48-53 Part II: School Level Guide Pages 48-53

48. 48 Every educator is an active participant in the evaluation process Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Continuous Learning Collaboration and Continuous Learning are the focus Every educator uses a rubric and data about student learning Every educator proposes at least 1 professional practice goal and 1 student learning goal. Team goals must be considered Educators and their evaluator collect evidence and assesses progress. Every educator earns one of four ratings of performance Every educator has a mid-cycle review

49. Early Learnings  Comprehensive, transparent communications strategies across all educators are critical to implementation success in Year One (Early Adopters & Level 4 districts)  Key stakeholders view new evaluation system positively and believe it is a significant improvement (3 rd party evaluator)  Establishing coherence with other initiatives plays key role in making this “meaningful” to educators (Early Adopters & Level 4 districts) 49 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

50. What can Educator Preparation Programs do to help prepare teachers?  Creating SMART goals within a professional context  Self-reflection against a rubric  Evidence collection  Analyzing student data  Understanding the value in being an active participant in this process and having skills to do the above Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 50

51. What Educator Preparation Programs can do to help prepare administrators?  For their evaluation… o Self-assessment of practice using the rubric o How to analyze data on student learning, growth and achievement o How to assess school progress, strengths, and areas in need of improvement o Create SMART goals for professional practice, student learning, and school improvement  Don’t forget the skills necessary to conduct evaluations… o Discuss goals with teachers o How to manage and conduct observations o How to provide actionable feedback to teachers o How to review artifacts and evidence and assess progress o How to manage many educator plans Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 51

52. Connecting Educator Evaluation and Educator Preparation Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 52

53. Making Connections: Based on what you’ve just heard, where does Educator Evaluation best fit in your program delivery? A.In a stand-alone course B.In pre-practicum coursework C.In practicum performance assessments D.Integrated throughout program coursework E.Nowhere F.Elsewhere 53

54. Making Connections: Consider the Key Features of the Educator Evaluation System  What do we already have embedded in our preparation program?  What do we need to incorporate that we may not be currently addressing in our preparation program?  What might we need to teach differently based on what we’ve learned here? o Partner Discussions o Tabletop Sharing Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 54

55. Critical Documents to Share with Candidates  Annual Cycle (for educators without professional status)  Quick Resource Guides o Model System o Training  Performance Rubric: Rubric-at-a-Glance Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 55

56. 56  ESE Model System o Teacher & Administrator Contract Language o School & District Implementation Guides o 4 Model Performance Rubrics  ESE Training Materials o Modules & Workshops  Additional Resources & Supports o Forms, guidance documents, webinars, presentations, newsletter, approved vendors 56 ESE Educator Evaluation Resources Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

57. Training Resources  ESE Guide to Educator Evaluation Training Requirements (www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/TrainingRequirements.pdf)www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/TrainingRequirements.pdf  Quick Reference Guide: Training Requirements (www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/)www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/  ESE Training Programs (www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/)www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/  Approved Vendors (www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/vendors/)www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/vendors/ Questions? Please contact us at EducatorEvaluation@doe.mass.edu EducatorEvaluation@doe.mass.edu 57 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

58. ESE Ed Eval Website  More information: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval  Questions: EducatorEvaluation@doe.mass.edu 58 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

59. Stay Informed about Educator Evaluation  Sign up for the monthly newsletter  http://edeval- newsletter- signup.org http://edeval- newsletter- signup.org Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 59

60. Q&A  What questions do you have for the Educator Evaluation and the Educator Preparation teams at ESE?  Tabletop Parking Lot Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 60

61. Conclusion  What’s next on the conference agenda?  How to make the most of the afternoon networking session time? Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 61 End-of-Session Feedback Forms