educator evaluation spring convening connecting policy, practice and practitioners may 28-29, 2014...

Educator Evaluation Spring ConveningConnecting Policy, Practice and Practitioners

May 28-29, 2014Marlborough, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education

2

Our goal


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


4

Educator Evaluation Team:Three Key Strategies

Teach

Learn

Connect

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.


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


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


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


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.


9

Expanding our Understanding of the Problem


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.


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.


14

Ed Eval – Original Timeline (in Regulations)

Ed Eval – Revised TimelineExtension by Exception

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

15

Educator Evaluation Results – State 2012-2013

16

Group Total NTotal

Evaluated

% Evaluate

d

% Exemplar

y

% Proficient

% Needs Improvemen

t

% Unsatisfacto

ry

All Educators 61,441 37,940 61.8 7.4 85.2 6.8 0.7

Administrators 5,187 2,271 43.8 10.5 86.1 3.0 0.5

Principals 1,310 667 50.9 7.0 88.9 3.1 0.9

Non-Administrators 56,921 36,004 63.3 7.2 85.1 7.0 0.7

Teachers 50,729 32,945 64.9 6.9 85.1 7.3 0.7

Teachers-Professional

Status33,902 22,302 65.8 7.7 87.1 4.6 0.6

Teachers - Non-PTS 10,244 8,446 82.4 3.0 82.5 13.5 1.0


17

Group Total NTotal

Evaluated

% Evaluate

d

% Exemplar

y

% Proficient

% Needs Improvemen

t

% Unsatisfacto

ry

All Educators 61,441 37,940 61.8 7.4 85.2 6.8 0.7

Administrators 5,187 2,271 43.8 10.5 86.1 3.0 0.5

Principals 1,310 667 50.9 7.0 88.9 3.1 0.9


Teachers 50,729 32,945 64.9 6.9 85.1 7.3 0.7

Teachers-Professional

Status33,902 22,302 65.8 7.7 87.1 4.6 0.6

Teachers - Non-PTS 10,244 8,446 82.4 3.0 82.5 13.5 1.0



18

Group Total N Total Evaluated

% Evaluated % Exemplary % Proficient % Needs

Improvement% Unsatisfactory

All Educators 61,441 37,940 61.8 7.4 85.2 6.8 0.7

Administrators 5,187 2,271 43.8 10.5 86.1 3.0 0.5

Principals 1,310 667 50.9 7.0 88.9 3.1 0.9


Teachers 50,729 32,945 64.9 6.9 85.1 7.3 0.7

Teachers-Professional Status 33,902 22,302 65.8 7.7 87.1 4.6 0.6

Teachers - Non-PTS 10,244 8,446 82.4 3.0 82.5 13.5 1.0


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

http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/GrowthPercentiles.pdf


Educator Evaluation Results vs. SGP

State Results

20

ELA SGP v. Evaluation Ratings Math SGP v. Evaluation Ratings

Exemplary 8.5% 58.4% 33.1% n=317 10.8% 50.2% 39.0% n=231

Proficient 15.5% 64.8% 19.7% n=3,329 16.7% 60.3% 23.0% n=3,015

Needs Improvement

28.9% 59.3% 11.9% n=270 29.2% 56.6% 14.2% n=281

Unsatisfactory 40.5% 54.1% 5.4% n=37 39.3% 50.0% 10.7% n=28

Low: 0 - 35 SGP

Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP

High: 65 - 99 SGP

Low: 0 - 35 SGP


High: 65 - 99 SGP

Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category



State Results

21


Exemplary 8.5% 58.4% 33.1% n=317 10.8% 50.2% 39.0% n=231

Proficient 15.5% 64.8% 19.7% n=3,329 16.7% 60.3% 23.0% n=3,015

Needs Improvement

28.9% 59.3% 11.9% n=270 29.2% 56.6% 14.2% n=281


Low: 0 - 35 SGP


High: 65 - 99 SGP

Low: 0 - 35 SGP


High: 65 - 99 SGP




State Results

22


Exemplary 8.5% 58.4% 33.1% n=317 10.8% 50.2% 39.0% n=231

Proficient 15.5% 64.8% 19.7% n=3,329 16.7% 60.3% 23.0% n=3,015

Needs Improvement

28.9% 59.3% 11.9% n=270 29.2% 56.6% 14.2% n=281


Low: 0 - 35 SGP


High: 65 - 99 SGP

Low: 0 - 35 SGP


High: 65 - 99 SGP




State Results

23


Exemplary 8.5% 58.4% 33.1% n=317 10.8% 50.2% 39.0% n=231

Proficient 15.5% 64.8% 19.7% n=3,329 16.7% 60.3% 23.0% n=3,015

Needs Improvement

28.9% 59.3% 11.9% n=270 29.2% 56.6% 14.2% n=281


Low: 0 - 35 SGP


High: 65 - 99 SGP

Low: 0 - 35 SGP


High: 65 - 99 SGP




State Results

24


Exemplary 8.5% 58.4% 33.1% n=317 10.8% 50.2% 39.0% n=231

Proficient 15.5% 64.8% 19.7% n=3,329 16.7% 60.3% 23.0% n=3,015

Needs Improvement

28.9% 59.3% 11.9% n=270 29.2% 56.6% 14.2% n=281


Low: 0 - 35 SGP


High: 65 - 99 SGP

Low: 0 - 35 SGP


High: 65 - 99 SGP



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

2013-14 Curriculum Summit – Curriculum-Embedded Performance Assessments (CEPAs) and DDMs

Professional Practice Innovation Grant


27

Stakeholder EngagementIncluding, but not limited to:

Superintendents Advisory Council

Principal Dialogue Tours

Principal Cabinets

Educator Effectiveness Teacher Cabinet

State Student Advisory Council


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 Calibration3. Student and Staff Feedback4. Professional Development

educator evaluation spring convening connecting policy, practice and practitioners may 28-29, 2014...

Documents

educator evaluation

educator evaluation

educator evaluation

educator effectiveness

educator voices

educator evaluation

implementation resources

ma board of education