Educator Evaluation Spring Convening Connecting Policy, Practice and Practitioners May 28-29, 2014 Marlborough, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 2 Our goal

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 3 Our core strategies Prepare all students for success after high school by: Improving educator effectiveness Strengthening curriculum, instruction, and assessment Turning around the lowest performing districts and schools Using data and technology to support student performance

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 4 Educator Evaluation Team: Three Key Strategies Teach LearnConnect Teaching the components of the Educator Evaluation framework and sharing implementation resources to build capacity within districts and schools. Learning from and with educators about their successes, challenges, and needs to ensure educator voices are reflected in Educator Evaluation policies and practices. Connecting and aligning Educator Evaluation implementation with other state and district initiatives to improve professional growth and student learning; creating opportunities for educators to connect and share with one another and ESE.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 5 Welcome! Who’s here today?  More than half MA districts attending (n~235)  Over 1,000 educators:  District Administrators,  School Administrators,  Teachers, and local union leaders,  Specialized Instructional Support Personnel, and  Collaborative Leaders and Staff  ESE Staff

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 6 Implementation Milestones (past)  June 2010: Educator Evaluation Task Force convened multiple times over 6 months.  June 2011: MA Board of Education passed new educator evaluation regulations  September 2011: Implementation began in 347 Level 4 schools, 11 Early Adopter districts, and 4 special education collaboratives  January 2012: Implementation began in all RTTT districts  September 2012: Implementation began in all RTTT districts

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 7 Implementation Milestones (present)  September 2013: Implementation began in all Non-RTTT districts  September 2013: All districts began piloting District Determined Measures  April 2014: Model Student and Staff Survey Pilots completed

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 8 Goals of the System  Promote growth and development;  Place student learning at the center;  High bar for professional teaching status;  Shortened timelines for improvement;  Recognize excellence.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 9 Expanding our Understanding of the Problem

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education

12 How are we doing? Spring 2014 Teacher Survey on Educator Evaluation  Almost all respondents have experienced at least some parts of the system.  70%-80% agree that they have received sufficient training on the various parts of the process.  87.9% agree or strongly agree that their evaluator’s assessment of performance is fair.  Among those teachers evaluated last year, 82.7% think the ratings they received last year were fair.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 13 How are we doing? Spring 2014 Teacher Survey on Educator Evaluation  There is still some anxiety: Less than half the respondents (43.0%) think the new system provides a fair process and about half (49.5%) feel anxious about their evaluator’s assessment of their performance. 63.5% feel more anxious this year because of the educator evaluation system.  Only about a quarter (27.2%) think that compared to the prior system, the new system enables educators to better distinguish between exceptional, capable, and weak educator practice, and only about a third (32.1%) think that compared to the prior system, the new evaluation system provides educators with more meaningful feedback.  81.4% think that the feedback they receive from their evaluator is timely and 72% reported that the feedback is helpful.  Most of those who were evaluated last year agree that they feel more knowledgeable and informed about the process this year.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 14 Ed Eval – Original Timeline (in Regulations)

Ed Eval – Revised Timeline Extension by Exception Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 15

Educator Evaluation Results – State GroupTotal N Total Evaluated % Evaluated % Exemplary % Proficient % Needs Improvement % Unsatisfactory All Educators 61,44137, Administrators 5,1872, Principals 1, Non-Administrators 56,92136, Teachers 50,72932, Teachers- Professional Status 33,90222, Teachers - Non-PTS 10,2448,

Educator Evaluation Results – State GroupTotal N Total Evaluated % Evaluated % Exemplary % Proficient % Needs Improvement % Unsatisfactory All Educators 61,44137, Administrators 5,1872, Principals 1, Non-Administrators 56,92136, Teachers 50,72932, Teachers- Professional Status 33,90222, Teachers - Non-PTS 10,2448,

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Educator Evaluation Results – State GroupTotal N Total Evaluated % Evaluated% Exemplary% Proficient % Needs Improvement % Unsatisfactory All Educators 61,44137, Administrators 5,1872, Principals 1, Non-Administrators 56,92136, Teachers 50,72932, Teachers-Professional Status 33,90222, Teachers - Non-PTS 10,2448,

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 19 Why Look at SGP?  Examine where there are similarities and differences between SGP and evaluation results  It is not the sole determinant in an educator’s evaluation  However, if there are large differences it would signal to state and districts there might be a need for additional training and calibration  Document on Educator Evaluation website explaining the uses centiles.pdf

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Educator Evaluation Results vs. SGP State Results 20 ELA SGP v. Evaluation RatingsMath SGP v. Evaluation Ratings Exemplary 8.5%58.4%33.1% n= %50.2%39.0% n=231 Proficient 15.5%64.8%19.7% n=3, %60.3%23.0% n=3,015 Needs Improvement 28.9%59.3%11.9% n= %56.6%14.2% n=281 Unsatisfactory 40.5%54.1%5.4% n= %50.0%10.7% n=28 Low: SGP Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP High: SGP Low: SGP Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP High: SGP Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Educator Evaluation Results vs. SGP State Results 21 ELA SGP v. Evaluation RatingsMath SGP v. Evaluation Ratings Exemplary 8.5%58.4%33.1% n= %50.2%39.0% n=231 Proficient 15.5%64.8%19.7% n=3, %60.3%23.0% n=3,015 Needs Improvement 28.9%59.3%11.9% n= %56.6%14.2% n=281 Unsatisfactory 40.5%54.1%5.4% n= %50.0%10.7% n=28 Low: SGP Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP High: SGP Low: SGP Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP High: SGP Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Educator Evaluation Results vs. SGP State Results 22 ELA SGP v. Evaluation RatingsMath SGP v. Evaluation Ratings Exemplary 8.5%58.4%33.1% n= %50.2%39.0% n=231 Proficient 15.5%64.8%19.7% n=3, %60.3%23.0% n=3,015 Needs Improvement 28.9%59.3%11.9% n= %56.6%14.2% n=281 Unsatisfactory 40.5%54.1%5.4% n= %50.0%10.7% n=28 Low: SGP Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP High: SGP Low: SGP Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP High: SGP Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Educator Evaluation Results vs. SGP State Results 23 ELA SGP v. Evaluation RatingsMath SGP v. Evaluation Ratings Exemplary 8.5%58.4%33.1% n= %50.2%39.0% n=231 Proficient 15.5%64.8%19.7% n=3, %60.3%23.0% n=3,015 Needs Improvement 28.9%59.3%11.9% n= %56.6%14.2% n=281 Unsatisfactory 40.5%54.1%5.4% n= %50.0%10.7% n=28 Low: SGP Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP High: SGP Low: SGP Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP High: SGP Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Educator Evaluation Results vs. SGP State Results 24 ELA SGP v. Evaluation RatingsMath SGP v. Evaluation Ratings Exemplary 8.5%58.4%33.1% n= %50.2%39.0% n=231 Proficient 15.5%64.8%19.7% n=3, %60.3%23.0% n=3,015 Needs Improvement 28.9%59.3%11.9% n= %56.6%14.2% n=281 Unsatisfactory 40.5%54.1%5.4% n= %50.0%10.7% n=28 Low: SGP Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP High: SGP Low: SGP Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP High: SGP Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Educator Evaluation Results vs. SGP 25 Evaluated English and Math Teachers in RTTT Districts Performance Level Mean ELA SGP Mean Math SGP # INC Exemplary /231 Proficient ,329/3,015 Needs Improvement /281 Unsatisfactory /28 These columns represent the mean SGP for the evaluated teachers. We use the mean in this case because we want to account for the entire distribution as opposed to using the median which identifies the middle case in the distribution.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 26 Integration of Initiatives You said ESE was not linking the implementation of the Curriculum Frameworks and Ed Eval, so we listened and produced integrated support:  Educator Evaluation and Curriculum Frameworks Quick Reference Guide  Ed Eval and Professional Development Quick Reference Guide  Using Current Assessments in DDMs Guidance Document  Curriculum Summit – Curriculum-Embedded Performance Assessments (CEPAs) and DDMs  Professional Practice Innovation Grant

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 27 Stakeholder Engagement Including, but not limited to:  Superintendents Advisory Council  Principal Dialogue Tours  Principal Cabinets  Educator Effectiveness Teacher Cabinet  State Student Advisory Council

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 28 Educator Evaluation Spring Convening: Connecting Policy, Practice, and Practitioners  Today we will focus on four key areas: 1.District Determined Measures (DDMs) 2.Evaluator Calibration 3.Student and Staff Feedback 4.Professional Development