Upload
myrtle-barnett
View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Educator Evaluation Spring ConveningConnecting Policy, Practice and Practitioners
May 28-29, 2014Marlborough, Massachusetts
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
2
Our goal
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
3
Our core strategies
Prepare all students for success after high school by:
Improving educator effectiveness
Strengthening curriculum, instruction, and assessment
Turning around the lowest performing districts and schools
Using data and technology to support student performance
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
4
Educator Evaluation Team:Three Key Strategies
Teach
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.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
5
Welcome! Who’s here today?
More than half MA districts attending (n~235)
Over 1,000 educators: District Administrators, School Administrators, Teachers, and local union leaders, Specialized Instructional Support Personnel, and Collaborative Leaders and Staff
ESE Staff
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
6
Implementation Milestones (past)
June 2010: Educator Evaluation Task Force convened multiple times over 6 months.
June 2011: MA Board of Education passed new educator evaluation regulations
September 2011: Implementation began in 347 Level 4 schools, 11 Early Adopter districts, and 4 special education collaboratives
January 2012: Implementation began in all RTTT districts
September 2012: Implementation began in all RTTT districts
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
7
Implementation Milestones (present) September 2013: Implementation began
in all Non-RTTT districts
September 2013: All districts began piloting District Determined Measures
April 2014: Model Student and Staff Survey Pilots completed
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
8
Goals of the System Promote growth and development; Place student learning at the center; High bar for professional teaching status; Shortened timelines for improvement; Recognize excellence.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
9
Expanding our Understanding of the Problem
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
12
How are we doing? Spring 2014 Teacher Survey on Educator Evaluation
Almost all respondents have experienced at least some parts of the system.
70%-80% agree that they have received sufficient training on the various parts of the process.
87.9% agree or strongly agree that their evaluator’s assessment of performance is fair.
Among those teachers evaluated last year, 82.7% think the ratings they received last year were fair.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
13
How are we doing? Spring 2014 Teacher Survey on Educator Evaluation There is still some anxiety: Less than half the respondents (43.0%)
think the new system provides a fair process and about half (49.5%) feel anxious about their evaluator’s assessment of their performance. 63.5% feel more anxious this year because of the educator evaluation system.
Only about a quarter (27.2%) think that compared to the prior
system, the new system enables educators to better distinguish between exceptional, capable, and weak educator practice, and only about a third (32.1%) think that compared to the prior system, the new evaluation system provides educators with more meaningful feedback.
81.4% think that the feedback they receive from their evaluator is timely and 72% reported that the feedback is helpful.
Most of those who were evaluated last year agree that they feel more knowledgeable and informed about the process this year.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
14
Ed Eval – Original Timeline (in Regulations)
Ed Eval – Revised 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
Educator Evaluation Results – State 2012-2013
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
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
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Educator Evaluation Results – State 2012-2013
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
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 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
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
19
Why Look at SGP? Examine where there are similarities and
differences between SGP and evaluation results
It is not the sole determinant in an educator’s evaluation
However, if there are large differences it would signal to state and districts there might be a need for additional training and calibration
Document on Educator Evaluation website explaining the uses
http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/ddm/GrowthPercentiles.pdf
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
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
Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP
High: 65 - 99 SGP
Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Educator Evaluation Results vs. SGP
State Results
21
ELA SGP v. Evaluation 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
Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP
High: 65 - 99 SGP
Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Educator Evaluation Results vs. SGP
State Results
22
ELA SGP v. Evaluation 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
Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP
High: 65 - 99 SGP
Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Educator Evaluation Results vs. SGP
State Results
23
ELA SGP v. Evaluation 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
Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP
High: 65 - 99 SGP
Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Educator Evaluation Results vs. SGP
State Results
24
ELA SGP v. Evaluation 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
Moderate: 35.5 – 64.5 SGP
High: 65 - 99 SGP
Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category Percent of Teachers in Each SGP Growth Category
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
26
Integration of Initiatives You said ESE was not linking the implementation of the Curriculum Frameworks and Ed Eval, so we listened and produced integrated support:
Educator Evaluation and Curriculum Frameworks Quick Reference Guide
Ed Eval and Professional Development Quick Reference Guide
Using Current Assessments in DDMs Guidance Document
2013-14 Curriculum Summit – Curriculum-Embedded Performance Assessments (CEPAs) and DDMs
Professional Practice Innovation Grant
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
27
Stakeholder EngagementIncluding, but not limited to:
Superintendents Advisory Council
Principal Dialogue Tours
Principal Cabinets
Educator Effectiveness Teacher Cabinet
State Student Advisory Council
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
28
Educator Evaluation Spring Convening:Connecting Policy, Practice, and Practitioners
Today we will focus on four key areas:
1. District Determined Measures (DDMs)2. Evaluator Calibration3. Student and Staff Feedback4. Professional Development