Presentation for Teacher Evaluation for Peabody

Report


Peabody Public Schools
June 21, 2012
 Wiki
with Resources
o http://rpseducatorevaluation.wikispaces.com/

Take a few minutes to write down any burning questions that
you may have in relation to the evaluation process
Risks (What if I screw up?)
“Nobody has ever been fired at Valve for making a mistake. It
wouldn’t even make sense for us to operate that way.
Providing the freedom to fail is an important trait of the
company-we couldn’t expect so much of individuals if we also
penalized people for errors. Even expensive mistakes, or ones
which result in a very public failure, are genuinely looked at as
opportunities to learn. We can always repair the mistake or
make up for it.
“Screwing up is a great way to find out that your assumptions
were wrong or that your model of the world was a little bit off.
As long as you update your model and move forward with a
better picture, you’re doing it right. Look for ways to test your
beliefs. Never be afraid to run an experiment or collect more
data.
It helps to make predictions and anticipate nasty outcomes.
Ask yourself “what would I expect to see if I’m right?” As
yourself “What would I expect to see if I’m wrong?” Then ask
yourself, “what do I see?” If something totally unexpected
happens, try to figure out why.”
“There are still some bad ways to fail. Repeating the same
mistake over and over is one. Not listening to customers or
peers before or after failure is another. Never ignore the
evidence; particularly when it says you’re wrong.”
 Discussion
of Educator Evaluation Regulations
 Engaging Educators in the Process
 SMART Goal Development
 Thoughts from an Early Adopter
 Questions
Feel Free to Ask Questions Throughout the Workshop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ
http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/
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





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





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



Focuses on Educator Growth and not “Gotcha”
Educators are partners in the process
Five Step Evaluation Cycle
o
o
o
o
o


Self-Assessment
Analysis, Goal Setting, Educator Plan Development
Implementation of Plan
Formative Assessment (Midyear or Mid-cycle)
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
o
o
o

New Teachers
Non-PTS Teachers
PTS Teachers
PTS Teachers who need additional support
Use of SMART Goals

Levels of Performance on Rubric
o Exemplary
o Proficient
o Needs Improvement
o Unsatisfactory

Specificity of Rubric
o Standards
o Indicators
o Elements



Four Standards
Multiple Measures of Student Performance (2013-14 School Year)
Use of student surveys (2014-15 School Year)
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 Education18
Every educator uses
a rubric to self-assess
against Performance
Standards
Rubric is used to
analyze
performance and
determine
ratings on each
Standard and
Overall
Rubric is used to
assess performance
and/or progress
toward goals
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Pages 4-5
Professional Practice
goals – team and/or
individual must be tied
to one or more
Performance Standards
Evidence is
collected for
Standards and
Indicators; rubric
19
should be used to
provide feedback
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education19
20
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education20
5 Step Cycle in Action
for Specialized
Instructional Support
Personnel
Counselor reviews data and identifies
three areas for improvement, grade 8
transition issues for special education
students, YRBS data for students
feeling emotionally safe at school, and
low participation levels for students in
Teen Screen program
Counselor receives a
rating on each standard
plus an overall rating
based on performance
against standards and
progress on the three
goals.
Midway through the cycle, the Director of
Guidance and counselor and
department/teams to review evidence and
assess progress on goals: makes adjustments
to action plan or benchmarks, if needed.
Continuous
Learning
Counselor works with
Director of Guidance
to develop a
department
professional practice
goal on Grade 8
Transition. Works
with health educators,
social workers, and
school psychologists
on a team student
learning goal to
improve emotional
safety of students,
and works with
Behavioral Health
Coordinator on a
team student learning
goal increasing
percentage of
students who
participate in Teen
Screen program.
Counselor gathers and synthesizes
evidence on progress on goals in
Educator Plan. Director of Guidance
focuses data collection on goal areas.
21




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
2013-14), 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.
District Strategy
Superintendent Goals
School Improvement
Plans
Principal Goals
Classroom Practice
Teacher Goals
Student Achievement
School Committee

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.
Principals & Administrators
Teachers
Instructional Leadership*
Curriculum, Planning & Assessment*
Management and Operations
Teaching All Students*
Family & Community Partnerships
Family & Community Engagement
Professional Culture
Professional Culture
* 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
Revised 9/30/2011
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
25
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 6
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education26

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
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education27
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 6
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education28
29
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education29
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
30
professional practice, team, and student learning goals
that are based on thorough self-assessment and analysis
of student learning data.
30
31
31
“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.”
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 14
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education32
“Proficient is the expected, rigorous
level of performance for educators. It
is the demanding but attainable level
of performance for most educators.”
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Page 9
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education33
 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.
 Educators
whose performance on a Standard is rated
as Unsatisfactory are significantly underperforming as
compared to the expectations. Unsatisfactory
performance requires urgent attention.
Standard I:
Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment
Standard II:
Teaching All Students
A. Instruction Indicator
1. Quality of Effort and Work
A. Curriculum and Planning Indicator
1. Subject Matter Knowledge
Standard III:
Family and Community Engagement
A. Engagement Indicator
1. Parent/Family Engagement
2. Student Engagement
Standard IV:
Professional Culture
A. Reflection Indicator
1. Reflective Practice
2. Goal Setting
3. Meeting Diverse Needs
2. Child and Adolescent Development
3. Rigorous Standards-Based Unit Design
4. Well-Structured Lessons
B. Assessment Indicator
B. Learning Environment Indicator
B. Collaboration Indicator
1. Variety of Assessment Methods
1. Safe Learning Environment
1. Learning Expectations
2. Adjustments to Practice
2. Collaborative Learning Environment
2. Curriculum Support
B. Professional Growth Indicator
1. Professional Learning and Growth
3. Student Motivation
C. Analysis Indicator
C. Cultural Proficiency Indicator
C. Communication Indicator
1. Analysis and Conclusions
1. Respects Differences
1. Two-Way Communication
2. Sharing Conclusions With Colleagues
2. Maintains Respectful Environment
2. Culturally Proficient Communication
C. Collaboration Indicator
1. Professional Collaboration
3. Sharing Conclusions With Students
D. Expectations Indicator
1. Clear Expectations
D. Decision-Making Indicator
1. Decision-making
2. High Expectations
3. Access to Knowledge
E. Shared Responsibility Indicator
1. Shared Responsibility
F. Professional Responsibilities Indicator
1. Judgment
2. Reliability and Responsibility

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.

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 standardsbased units of instruction consisting of well-structured lessons with
measurable outcomes.

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.
Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative performance rating
Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education
40
Evidence
Products of Practice
(e.g., observations)
Multiple Measures
of Student Learning
Other Evidence
(e.g. student surveys)
Standards
R
U
B
R
I
C
Standard 1
Standard 2
Standard 3
Standard 4
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
(Did Not Meet, Some Progress, Significant Progress, Met,
Exceeded)
Outcomes for
Educator:
• Recognition and
rewards
• Type and duration of
Educator Plan
Rating of Impact
on Student
Learning
Low, Moderate, or High
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
Revised 9/30/2011
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
41
Summative Rating
Rating System
Until Impact on Student Learning is Implemented in 2013-14/2014-15
Exemplary
Proficient
1-YEAR SELF2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
DIRECTED
PLAN
GROWTHGROWTH
PLAN
GROWTH PLAN
Needs
Improvement
DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN
Unsatisfactory
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
Low
Moderate
High
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education42
Summative Rating
Educators earn two separate ratings
Exemplary
Proficient
1-YEAR SELFDIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
Needs
Improvement
DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN
Unsatisfactory
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Low
Moderate
High
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 Education43
Summative Rating
Summative Rating
Educators earn two separate ratings
Exemplary
Exemplary
Proficient
Proficient
1-YEAR
1-YEARSELFSELFDIRECTED
DIRECTED
GROWTH
GROWTHPLAN
PLAN
2-YEAR
2-YEARSELF-DIRECTED
SELF-DIRECTED
GROWTH
GROWTHPLAN
PLAN
Needs
Needs
Improvement
Improvement
DIRECTED
DIRECTEDGROWTH
GROWTHPLAN
PLAN
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
IMPROVEMENT
IMPROVEMENTPLAN
PLAN
Low
Low
Based on:
Rating of
Performance on
each of 4
Standards
+
Attainment of Goals
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Rating
RatingofofImpact
ImpactononStudent
StudentLearning
Learning
(multiple
measures
performance,
MCAS
(multiple
measuresofof
performance,including
including
MCASStudent
Student
Growth
GrowthPercentile
Percentileand
andMEPA
MEPAwhere
whereavailable)
available)
Based on Trends and Patterns on state- and
district-determined measures of student
learning gains
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education44
44
 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)



September 30, 2013-All Districts expected to identify their
district determined measures and their process for rating
educator impact on student learning.
2013-14 School Year: All districts implement the DDM.
Non-level 4 districts may choose to use the 2013-14 school
year as a pilot year to test out their DDM.
By October, 2014: Level 4 districts complete their collection
of the first year of data on educator impact on student
learning. No ratings assigned (2 Years required)
o All other districts may either collect the first year of data on
educator impact on student learning or consider the 2013-14
school year as a pilot.


By October, 2015: Level 4 districts report educator impact
ratings to DESE. All other districts either collect the first
year of data on educator impact on student learning or if
they did not use 2013-14 school year as a pilot, report
educator impact ratings to ESE based on ratings from the
2013-14 and 2014-15 school years.
By October, 2016: All districts report educator impact on
student learning ratings to DESE based on the previous two
years of impact data.



Timeline may be different for administrators for MCAS,
MEPA, AP Results
Measures of student learning should focus on growth, not
just achievement
Growth measures will only be useful if they pertain to a
relevant group of students for the educator being evaluated.

Direct Measures (Assess student growth in a specific
subject area over time)
o MCAS Growth Percentiles in Math and ELA
o Other Standardized assessment of student achievement
o Portfolios of student work
o Performance assessments

Indirect Measures (Do not measure student growth in a
specific subject area, but measure the consequences of
that learning)
o Changes in graduation rates
o College enrollment rates
o College remediation rates

Teachers
o PreK-High School
o Special Education
o ELL
o Vocational Education
o World Languages
o Health, PE, Family and Consumer Science, Arts

Administrators
o Superintendents
o Other District Administrators
o Principals, Assistant Principals
o Teachers with supervisory responsibilities, including department
chairs

Educators supporting specific teachers or subjects
o Instructional coaches or mentors
o Reading specialists

Specialized Instructional Support Personnel
o School Nurses
o School Social Workers and Adjustment Counselors
o Guidance Counselors
o School Psychologists
o Library Media and Technology Integration Specialists

Teachers
o Tests and other measures of learning specific to subjects and grades
o Student portfolios, projects, performances, artifacts

Administrators
o Tests and other measures of learning specific to subjects and grades
o Indirect measures of student learning such as graduation rates

Educators supporting specific teachers or subjects
o Measures of student learning of the students of the teachers with
whom they work

Specialized Instructional Support Personnel
o Tests and other measures of learning specific to subjects and grades
o Indirect measures of student learning such as graduation rates.


Establishing Growth
Credibility
o Validity
• The extend to which the assessment measures what it is intended to
measure and provides sound evidence for decisions informed by its
results.
o Reliability
• A student who takes it multiple times should get a similar score each
time.
o Fair and free of bias
• Items and tasks are appropriate for as many students as possible and
students are not presented with unnecessary and unwarranted barriers
to demonstrating their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Attribution
o Designating responsibility among educators for their impact on
students’ learning growth and achievement
• Primary, Shared, or Limited

Roster Verification
o Confirming the accuracy of student-teacher links

Determining the Impact on Student Learning Rating
o What is low growth, moderate growth, and high growth?

Unannounced Observations
o Partial or full period classroom visitations, instructional rounds,
walkthroughs, learning walks, or other means deemed useful by the
evaluator.
o Educator will be provided with brief written feedback





Evidence compiled and presented by educator
Fulfillment of professional responsibilities and growth
Active outreach to and on-going engagement with families
Any other relevant evidence from any source that the
evaluator shares with the educator
Student/staff feedback (2013-14)
Educator Evaluation
Common Core
Common Assessments
Student
and
Teacher
Growth

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.

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
What will implementation of educator
evaluation regulations allow you to do that is
really important to drive instructional
improvement and student learning in your
system?
-5 minutes for individual writing; 10 minutes for table
discussion



How does education evaluation relate to your strategy?
To what extent do different people in the organization
(principals, teachers, school board members, community
members) understand the relationship of education evaluation
to your strategy and to realizing what you think is most
important to drive instructional improvement and student
learning? What’s your evidence for your assessment?
What are a couple of things you can do in the near term to
help everyone in the system think about evaluation relative to
larger goals for that work and system strategy?


Peabody Presentation

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.
I Know
I Apply
I
Participate
I Lead

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.


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 Email
o Information Sessions
o Podcasts/Webinars

Train the Trainer Models





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.

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






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.

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








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.

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


Peabody Workshop
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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 Education73
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 Education74
A Goal Statement
+
Key Actions
+
Benchmarks (Process & Outcome)
=
The Heart of the Educator Plan
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education75
 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 Education76
Revise goal statement, key actions and
benchmarks as needed
BUT…….. Don’t obsess!
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education77
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 Education78
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 Education79
Goal Statement: During 2012-2013, 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 Education80
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education81
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 Education82

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 Education83
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.
84
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education84
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%.
85
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education85
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 Education86


Peabody Workshop
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.
88
•Only 50% of the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students read at grade level
School
•40% of our team’s incoming 8th grade students read at least 2 grade
levels below 8th grade. 25% of them read at or below the 3rd grade level
Team
Classroom
•3 students are repeating the 8th 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.
89
 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
90

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”
91
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
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
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
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
District
Goals
School
Goals
Professional
Practice
Goal(s)
Educator Evaluation
Student
Learning
Goal(s)
96
School
Goal
• 80% of our students will all read at or above grade
level by the end of the 2011-2012 school year
8th Grade
Team Goal
• 100% of the 8th 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
97
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?
 Specific and Strategic
TASK: rewrite Isaac’s goal




Measurable and Monitored
Action Oriented and Agreed Upon
Realistic and Results Oriented
Time-Bound and Tracked
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
99
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
100
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
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 2012-13.
101
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education




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

Opportunity to change teaching and learning
o Focused Conversations
o Creating Opportunity for Educator Growth
o Leads to Student Growth
o Tie in initiatives to educator evaluation

Build trust with educators
o Committee Work on Teacher Evaluation Process

Educate the Community
o School Committee Meetings
o Community Forums
or
“The” organizing initiative?
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
104











Adopting the new MA Curriculum Frameworks
21st 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
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
105





This may be the most important initiative that you undertake in
your district
Look at this as your organizing initiative for all other initiatives
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
o Use the Train the Trainer Model
o Use Special Education Teachers as Experts



Collaboration is critical to the success of this implementation
Link this system to the common core and assessment
development
Integrate the behavioral health framework into the system






Transparent and ongoing open honest communication is critical
Train all supervisors in the process to create inter-rater reliability
Use the DESE materials
Adopt the model rubrics
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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

Wiki with Resources
o http://rpseducatorevaluation.wikispaces.com/

Email
o John.doherty@reading.k12.ma.us




Reading Public Schools
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 Education112
Every educator uses
a rubric to self-assess
against Performance
Standards
Rubric is used to
analyze
performance and
determine
ratings on each
Standard and
Overall
Rubric is used to
assess performance
and/or progress
toward goals
Part III: Guide to Rubrics
Pages 4-5
Professional Practice
goals – team and/or
individual must be tied
to one or more
Performance Standards
Evidence is
collected for
Standards and
11
Indicators; rubric
should be used to
3
provide feedback
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
113
114
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
11
5
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
115


Focuses on Educator Growth and not “Gotcha”
Five Step Evaluation Cycle
o
o
o
o
o


Self-Assessment
Analysis, Goal Setting, Educator Plan Development
Implementation of Plan
Formative Assessment (Midyear or Mid-cycle)
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
o
o
o

New Teachers
Non-PTS Teachers
PTS Teachers
PTS Teachers who need additional support
Use of SMART Goals

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 (2013-14 School Year)
Use of student surveys (2014-15 School Year)
Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative performance rating
Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education
118
Summative Rating
Educators earn two separate ratings
Exemplary
Proficient
1-YEAR SELFDIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED
GROWTH PLAN
Needs
Improvement
DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN
Unsatisfactory
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Low
Moderate
High
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
119
2011-12 School Year
2012-13 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 Cycle
Year 2 of Self-Directed Growth Plan
PTS on Year 2 of TAP Cycle
Self-Directed Growth Plan or Directed
Growth Plan
PTS New to An Assignment
Developing Educator Plan or Self-Directed
Growth Plan
PTS on Year 1 of Alternative Evaluation
Will Complete Year 2 of Alternative
Evaluation, then new system in 2013-14
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
Event
Due Date
Evaluator meets with Educators in teams
or individually to establish Educator
Plans
October 15
Educator Plans due to Evaluators
October 30
Mid-cycle for 1 Year Educator Plans
February 1
Evaluator completes summative
evaluation report
June 10
Educator signs Summative Evaluation
Report
June 15

Wiki with Resources
o http://rpseducatorevaluation.wikispaces.com/

Email
o John.doherty@reading.k12.ma.us

similar documents