NEC and SEEM Workshop May 4, 2012. Donna Martinson, Teacher, Parker Middle School Elisabeth...

transcript

Educator Evaluation

SystemNEC and SEEM Workshop

May 4, 2012

Presenters Donna Martinson, Teacher, Parker Middle School Elisabeth Shanley, Teacher, Parker Middle School Joanne Fitzpatrick, Reading Memorial High School Helen Sellers, Killam Elementary School John Doherty, Superintendent of Schools

Agenda 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM: An overview of the process for

Board members and union representatives

10:00-10:15 A.M.: Break

10:15 AM - 12:00 noon: Guidance around the evaluation process and Smart Goals for administrators

Feel free to ask questions throughout the presentation

RPS Educator Evaluation Wiki

Wiki with Resourceso http://rpseducatorevaluation.wikispaces.

Let’s Take a Few Minutes

Take a few minutes to write down any burning questions that you may have in relation to the evaluation process from the lens of the collective bargaining process

Burning Questions

Agenda Discussion of Educator Evaluation Regulations Comparison to Our TAP

o What is the sameo What is new

How does this effect me as a teacher? Next steps in the process Questions

The Power of Teamwork and Collaboration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc4UltkRJsw

Every Beginning is Difficult

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

Educator Evaluation Model System

12http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/

Educator Evaluation New DESE Regulations approved on June 28, 2011 Collaboratively Designed by

o Massachusetts Teachers Associationo Massachusetts Association of Secondary School Principalso Massachusetts Elementary School Principals Associationo Massachusetts Association of School Superintendentso 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

Reading is an Early Adopter

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 Goalso Superintendent’s Evaluation Processo Principal Evaluation Process

TAP CommitteeA Key to the 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

Components of System Focuses on Educator Growth and not “Gotcha” Educators are partners in the process Five Step Evaluation Cycle

o Self-Assessmento Analysis, Goal Setting, Educator Plan Developmento Implementation of Plano Formative Assessment (Midyear or Mid-cycle)o Summative Evaluation (End of Year/Cycle Evaluation)

Rubric for Evaluation Use of Artifacts for Evidence

o Lesson Plans, Professional Development Activities, Flierso Walkthroughso Announced and Unannounced observations

Differentiated Approacho New Teacherso Non-PTS Teacherso PTS Teacherso PTS Teachers who need additional support

Use of SMART Goals

Components of System 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 Rubrico Standards o Indicatorso 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 Education

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education19

5 Step Evaluation Cycle: Rubrics

Part III: Guide to RubricsPages 4-5

Rubric is used to assess

performance and/or progress

toward goals

Rubric is used to analyze

performance and determine

ratings on each Standard

and Overall

Every educator uses a rubric to

self-assess against Performance

Standards

Professional Practice goals – team and/or individual must be tied to one or more

Performance Standards

Evidence is collected for

Standards and Indicators;

rubric should be used to provide

feedback

Four Different Educator Plans

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.

Goal Setting ProcessFocus-Coherence-Synergy

District Strategy Superintendent Goals School Committee

School Improvement Principal Goals Plans

Classroom Practice Teacher Goals

Student Achievement

Standards, Indicators and Rubrics

Standards (4)-Required in Regulationso 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.

The framework establishes four standards of practice, with supporting rubrics defining

four levels of effectiveness

Principals & Administrators Teachers

Instructional Leadership*

Management and Operations

Family & Community Partnerships

Professional Culture

Curriculum, Planning & Assessment*

Teaching All Students*

Family & Community Engagement

Professional Culture

23Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationRevised 9/30/2011

* 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

Model Rubrics: Structure

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationPart III: Guide to RubricsPage 6

Model Rubrics: Vertical Alignment within Rubrics

Example: Teacher Rubrico 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 RubricsAppendix C, pages 2-4

Model Rubrics: Structure

The Model Rubrics are Aligned

Rubric Alignment, e.g., Goal Setting

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 professional practice, team, and student learning goals that are based on thorough self-assessment and analysis of student learning data.

Alignment of Rubrics, e.g., Goal Setting

Exemplary

“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.”

Proficient

“Proficient is the expected, rigorous level of performance for educators. It is the demanding but attainable level of performance for most educators.”

Needs Improvement 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.

Unsatisfactory 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

Standard III:Family and Community Engagement

Standard IV:Professional Culture

A. Curriculum and Planning Indicator

1. Subject Matter Knowledge

2. Child and Adolescent Development

3. Rigorous Standards-Based Unit Design

4. Well-Structured Lessons

A. Instruction Indicator

1. Quality of Effort and Work

2. Student Engagement

3. Meeting Diverse Needs

A. Engagement Indicator

1. Parent/Family Engagement

A. Reflection Indicator

1. Reflective Practice

2. Goal Setting

B. Assessment Indicator

1. Variety of Assessment Methods

2. Adjustments to Practice

B. Learning Environment Indicator

1. Safe Learning Environment

2. Collaborative Learning Environment

3. Student Motivation

B. Collaboration Indicator

1. Learning Expectations

2. Curriculum Support

B. Professional Growth Indicator

1. Professional Learning and Growth

C. Analysis Indicator

1. Analysis and Conclusions

2. Sharing Conclusions With Colleagues

3. Sharing Conclusions With Students

C. Cultural Proficiency Indicator

1. Respects Differences

2. Maintains Respectful Environment

C. Communication Indicator

1. Two-Way Communication

2. Culturally Proficient Communication

C. Collaboration Indicator

1. Professional Collaboration

D. Expectations Indicator

1. Clear Expectations

2. High Expectations

3. Access to Knowledge

D. Decision-Making Indicator

1. Decision-making

E. Shared Responsibility Indicator

1. Shared Responsibility

F. Professional Responsibilities Indicator

1. Judgment

2. Reliability and Responsibility

Example of Teacher Rubric

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.

Example 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 standards-based units of instruction consisting of well-structured lessons with measurable outcomes.

Example 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.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education38

Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative performance rating

Multiple sources of evidence inform the evaluation

39Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

SummativePerformance

RatingExemplaryProficient

Needs ImprovementUnsatisfactory

Attainment of Educator Practice Goal(s) and Student Learning

Goal(s) as identified in the Educator Plan

Standard 1

Standard 2

Standard 3

Standard 4

RUBRIC

Outcomes for Educator:

• Recognition and rewards

• Type and duration of Educator Plan

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

Products of Practice(e.g., observations)Multiple

Measuresof Student LearningOther Evidence

(e.g. student surveys)

Evidence

Rating of Impact on Student Learning

Low, Moderate, or High

Standards

Revised 9/30/2011

Educators earn two separate ratings

Summative

Rating

Exemplary 1-YEAR SELF-

DIRECTED GROWTH

2-YEAR SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH PLAN

Proficient

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

Summative

Rating

DIRECTED GROWTH

Proficient

Low Moderate High

Student Growth Percentile and MEPA where available)

Summative

Rating

DIRECTED GROWTH

Proficient

Low Moderate High

Summative

Rating

DIRECTED GROWTH

Proficient

Low Moderate High

Based on: Rating of

Performance on

each of 4 Standards

+Attainment of

Based on Trends and Patterns on state- and district-determined measures of student learning

Phase-in Over Next 2 Years

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)

Three Different Initiatives? Or Just

Student and

Teacher Growth

Educator Evaluation

Common Core

Common Assessments

Example of Three Initiatives In One

Common Core For Literacy has three expectationso Building knowledge through content rich non-fiction and

informational textso Reading and writing grounded in evidence from texto 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.

Examples of Three Initiatives in OneContinued

Classroom Observations Focus Ono Engaging Students Directly with High Quality Textso 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 Ono MCAS/PARCCo Student Analytic Writing which shows growth over timeo Student presentations which shows evidence of drawing

information from texts over time

Individual Reflection and Discussion

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

Reflection Questions

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?

How to Engage Educators

NEC and SEEM Presentation

Engaging Educators FrameworkSource: Reform Support Network

Four Domains of Educator Engagemento I knowo I applyo I participateo 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.

A Framework for Engaging Educators

I Know I ApplyI

Participate

I Lead

I Know 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.

Strategies for “I Know” All stakeholders (SEA, LEA, Union) are responsible Develop feedback loops for misconceptions

o Surveys, Focus Group Sessions Communicate, Communicate, Communicate

o Guidebookso FAQo Websiteo Newslettero Emailo Information Sessionso Podcasts/Webinars

Train the Trainer Models

I Apply 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.

Strategies to Support “I Apply”

Make resources and tools available for educators to useo Model lesson plans aligned to standardso Instructional coachingo Mentoringo Professional Developmento Interim Assessmentso Videos of high quality instruction

I Participate 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.

Supporting “I Participate”

Feedback Loopso Surveys that gauge frequency and quality of feedbacko 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

responsibilitieso Peer Observation Piloto Developing assessments for multiple measureso Tools and guidance with student learning objectives

I lead 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.

Supporting “I Lead” Identify excellent practitioners and give them

opportunities to leado Study groups which focus on particular evaluation

standards or development of assessmentso Participate on school/district evaluation advisory

committees Establish a culture that accommodates

disagreement, but does not accept the status quo

SMART Goal Development

NEC and SEEM Workshop

What Makes a Goal “SMART”?

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)

What Makes a Goal “SMART”?

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.

A Massachusetts“SMARTer GOAL”

=A Goal Statement

+Key Actions

+Benchmarks (Process & Outcome)

=The Heart of the Educator Plan

Step-by-Step with the MA “S.M.A.R.T.er” Goal Model

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

BenchmarksMassachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

The S.M.A.R.T.er Goal Process: an iterative process

Revise goal statement, key actions and benchmarks as

needed

BUT…….. Don’t obsess!

Guided Practice #2:A superintendent’s meetings

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.

Guided Practice #2The 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?)

Guided Practice #2: Sample Superintendent Goal

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.

Guided Practice #2

Guided Practice #2The 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?)

What’s really “new” here: professional practice goals

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.

Guided Practice #3: A Principal’s Observations and Feedback

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.

Guided Practice #3: A Principal’s Observations and Feedback

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%.

Guided Practice #3In 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”

An ExampleNEC and SEEM Workshop

Self-Assessment:Three Parts

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.

Isaac FosterAnalysis of Student Learning Needs

School

• Only 50% of the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students read at grade level

• 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

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.

Prioritizing Consider…

o District, School, or Team Goalso Connection between student learning needs and

areas for professional growtho Timelineo Focusing in on a particular Indicator or group of

related Elements

Education77

Two Types of GoalsIn Regulations - 35.02

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”

A Not-So-SMART Goal(Team Goal, Professional Practice)

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

SMART Goal Rewrite(Team Goal, Student Learning)

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.

A Not-So-SMART Goal(Team Goal, Professional Practice)

We will create reading comprehension formative assessments and analyze the resulting formative data.

SMART Goal Rewrite(Team Goal, Professional Practice)

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.

Create a “Through Line” Across Goals

Educator Evaluation

District Goals

School Goals

Professional Practice Goal(s)

Student Learning Goal(s)

How can I manage

my professional

growth

Isaac FosterStudent Learning SMART Goals

SchoolGoa

• 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 Goa

• 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

One of Isaac’s Proposed Professional Practice Goals

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?

TASK: rewrite Isaac’s goal

SMART Goal Rewrite(Individual Goal, Professional

Practice)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.

Wrap up: Goal Statement “starters”

In pairs, First, review Sample School or District Goal

Statements; identify: District/School Improvement Goal Statements Student Learning Goal Statements Professional Practice Goal StatementsNext, identify which could be TEAM goals?Finally, choose one to make “SMARTer” back in your

school or district

Your “Homework”

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.

Next Steps for Reading 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 Formso Planning professional development opportunities

September Inserviceo SMART Goal Development

Some Final Thoughts As An Early Adopter

This may be the most important initiative that you undertake in your district

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 Use your special education teachers as a resource for SMART Goal

Development Collaboration is critical to the success of this implementation Link this system to the common core and assessment development Use the DESE materials Adopt the model rubric Transparent and ongoing open honest communication is critical 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

Questions and Thank You

Wiki with Resourceso http://rpseducatorevaluation.wikispaces.com/

Emailo John.doherty@reading.k12.ma.us

Thank You!

Staff MeetingsReading 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 Education97

5 Step Evaluation Cycle: Rubrics

Part III: Guide to RubricsPages 4-5

Rubric is used to assess

performance and/or progress

toward goals

Rubric is used to analyze

performance and determine

ratings on each Standard

and Overall

Every educator uses a rubric to

self-assess against Performance

Standards

Professional Practice goals – team and/or individual must be tied to one or more

Performance Standards

Evidence is collected for

Standards and Indicators;

rubric should be used to provide

feedback

An example

What is the same? Focuses on Educator Growth and not “Gotcha” Five Step Evaluation Cycle

o Self-Assessmento Analysis, Goal Setting, Educator Plan Developmento Implementation of Plano Formative Assessment (Midyear or Mid-cycle)o Summative Evaluation (End of Year/Cycle Evaluation)

Rubric for Evaluation Use of Artifacts for Evidence

o Lesson Plans, Professional Development Activities, Flierso Walkthroughs

Differentiated Approacho New Teacherso Non-PTS Teacherso PTS Teacherso PTS Teachers who need additional support

Use of SMART Goals

What is different? 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 Rubrico Standards o Indicatorso 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)

Education102

Multiple sources of evidence inform the summative performance rating

Summative

Rating

DIRECTED GROWTH

Proficient

Low Moderate High

Summative

Rating

DIRECTED GROWTH

Proficient

Low Moderate High

What Plan Will I Be On Next Year?

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

TimelineEvent 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

NEC and SEEM Workshop May 4, 2012. Donna Martinson, Teacher, Parker Middle School Elisabeth...

Documents