Upload
jemimah-russell
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Educator Evaluation 101: A Special Overview Session for Educator Preparation ProgramsMay 2013
Welcome
Please sit together as a team with your sponsoring organization
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
2
3
Educator Effectiveness Pipeline
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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
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
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
Session Logistics Norms Breaks Tabletop Parking Lots
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
7
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
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.
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 cycleo Use of multiple measureso 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.
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 systemso 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
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
Overview of the Massachusetts Educator Evaluation Framework
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
14
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 itB. We’re planning on doing itC. We’re thinking about doing itD. It hasn’t been on our radar, not yet
Identifying Program Readiness
15
Judging Candidate Readiness
Professional Goal Setting Self-reflection against a performance
standard Collecting evidence related to a focused
goal Analyzing student data
16
Overall, what is the skill level of your candidates in the area of:Professional Goal settingA. HighB. ModerateC. Low
17
Overall, what is the skill level of your candidates in the area of:Self-reflection against a performance standard
A. HighB. ModerateC. Low
18
Overall, what is the skill level of your candidates in the area of:Providing evidence related to a focused goal
A. HighB. ModerateC. Low
19
Overall, what is the skill level of your candidates in the area of:Analyzing student dataA. HighB. ModerateC. Low
20
21
Collaborative Development of the Educator Evaluation
FrameworkRace 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
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
22We want to ensure that each student in the Commonwealth
is taught by an effective educator, in schools and districts led by effective leaders.
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
Everyone earns two ratings
ExemplaryProficient
Needs ImprovementUnsatisfactory
HighModerate
Low
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
24
SummativePerformance
Rating
Impact Ratingon
StudentPerformance
*Most districts will not begin issuing Impact Ratings before the 2014-2015 school year.
Summative Performance Rating
ExemplaryProficient
Needs ImprovementUnsatisfactory
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
SummativePerformance
Rating
4 Performance Levels
Exemplary
Proficient
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
26SummativePerformanc
e Rating
4 Performance Levels
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
27
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 & Operations Teaching All Students*
Family & Community Engagement
Family & Community Engagement
Professional Culture Professional Culture
29
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice
I. Curriculum, Planning, & Assessment
II. Teaching All Students
III. Family & Community Engagement
IV. ProfessionalCulture
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
SummativePerformanc
e Rating
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. ProfessionalCulture
A. Curriculum and Planning1. Subject Matter
Knowledge2. Child and Adolescent
Development3. Rigorous Standards-
Based Unit Design4. Well-Structured
Lessons
B. Assessment5. Variety of Assessment
Methods6. Adjustments to
Practice
C. Analysis7. Analysis and
Conclusions8. Sharing Conclusions
with Colleagues9. Sharing Conclusions
with Students
A. Instruction1. Quality and Effort of
Work2. Student Engagement3. Meeting Diverse Needs
B. Learning Environment4. Safe Learning
Environment5. Collaborative Learning
Environment6. Student Motivation
C. Cultural Proficiency7. Respects Differences8. Maintains Respectful
Environment
D. Expectations9. Clear Expectations10.High Expectations11.Access to Knowledge
A. Engagement1. Parent/Family
Engagement
B. Collaboration2. Learning Expectations3. Curriculum Support
C. Communication4. Two-Way
Communication5. Culturally Proficient
Communication
A. Reflection1. Reflective Practice2. Goal Setting
B. Professional Growth3. Professional Learning
and Growth
C. Collaboration1. Professional
Collaboration
D. Decision-making1. Decision-Making
E. Shared Responsibility2. Shared Responsibility
F. Professional Responsibilities3. Judgment4. Reliability and
Responsibility
31
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice (with ESE Model Rubric elements)
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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
SummativePerformanc
e Rating
Four Standards of Practice + Progress Toward Educator Goals
Exemplary – Proficient – Needs Improvement -- Unsatisfactory
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
33
SummativePerformance Rating
Summative Rating Determines Your Educator
Plan
Summativ
e Rating
Exemplary1-yr Self-Directed
Growth Plan2-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan
Proficient
Needs Improvement
Directed Growth Plan
Unsatisfactory Improvement Plan
*Developing Educator Plan: for new teachers & administratorsMassachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
34
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 PlanFor experienced educators rated Proficient or Exemplary on their last evaluation; these plans can be one or two school years in length
Directed Growth PlanFor educators rated Needs Improvement on their last evaluation; up to one school year in length
Improvement PlanFor educators rated Unsatisfactory on their last evaluation;min. of 30 calendar days, up to one school year in lengthMassachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
35
Student Impact RatingRating 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
HighModerate
Low
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
36
Impact Ratingon
StudentPerformance
*Most districts will not begin issuing Impact Ratings before the 2015-2016 school year.
Student Impact Rating Determines Plan Duration
Summativ
e Rating
Exemplary1-yr Self-Directed
Growth Plan2-yr Self-Directed Growth Plan
Proficient
Needs Improvement
Directed Growth Plan
Unsatisfactory Improvement Plan
Low Moderate High
Rating of Impact on Student Learning
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
37Impact
Ratingon
StudentPerformance
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 LearningMassachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
38Impact
Ratingon
StudentPerformance
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
Step 1: Self-Assessment Educators self-assess their performance
using: o Student data, ando Performance rubric
QBased 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 GuidePages 14-22
Step 2: Analysis, Goal Setting and Plan Development Educators set S.M.A.R.T. goals:
o Student learning goalo 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 GuidePages 23-31
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
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 learningo Observations and artifactso Additional evidence related to performance
standards Evaluator provides feedback
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
43
Part II: School Level GuidePages 32-39
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
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.
Step 4: Formative Assessment/ Evaluation Occurs mid-way through the 5-Step
Cycleo 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 GuidePages 40-47
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 GuidePages 48-53
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
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 (3rd 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
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
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
teacherso How to manage and
conduct observationso 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
Connecting Educator Evaluation and Educator Preparation
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
52
Making Connections: Based on what you’ve just heard, where does Educator Evaluation best fit in your program delivery?
A. In a stand-alone courseB. In pre-practicum courseworkC. In practicum performance assessmentsD. Integrated throughout program
courseworkE. NowhereF. Elsewhere
53
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 Discussionso Tabletop Sharing
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
54
Critical Documents to Share with Candidates
Annual Cycle (for educators without professional status)
Quick Resource Guideso Model Systemo Training
Performance Rubric: Rubric-at-a-Glance
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
55
56
ESE Model Systemo Teacher & Administrator Contract Language
o School & District Implementation Guides
o 4 Model Performance Rubrics
ESE Training Materialso Modules & Workshops
Additional Resources & Supportso Forms, guidance documents, webinars,
presentations, newsletter, approved vendors56
ESE Educator Evaluation Resources
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Training Resources ESE Guide to Educator Evaluation Training Requirements (
www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/TrainingRequirements.pdf)
Quick Reference Guide: Training Requirements (www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/)
ESE Training Programs (www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/)
Approved Vendors (www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/training/vendors/)
Questions? Please contact us at [email protected]
57
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
ESE Ed Eval Website
More information: http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval
Questions: [email protected]
58
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Stay Informed about Educator Evaluation
Sign up for the monthly newsletter
http://edeval-newsletter-signup.org
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
59
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
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
61End-of-Session Feedback Forms