Educator Evaluation Beacon

artifacts

The Second Key to Success: Providing Guidance

by

In an earlier post I mentioned how important administrative guidance is to successful implementation of the new educator evaluation. This guidance comes in many forms– from limiting the number of elements educators and evaluators focus on to setting clear expectations about the submission of artifacts to a coordinated effort to draft team goals whenever possible.

Both Hadley and Amherst Public Schools encourage teachers to focus their efforts on a specific subset of elements within the performance rubric. Amherst selected ten elements (Amherst Priority Elements–Teachers), while Hadley identified nine (HadleyTeacher Rubric- 9 Elements v2).

As I point out in the Q & A section of this blog, the model system requires teachers to submit artifacts that demonstrate their progress in all sixteen indicators in the performance rubric. In order to streamline this process, administrators lead staff in identifying existing artifacts (such as model curriculum units) that address many indicators. Setting limits on the number and size of artifacts lightens work loads for teachers and principals while also increasing the odds that useful information will emerge from collaborative review of the artifacts.

Similarly, the creation of team goals for either the professional practice or the student learning goal can streamline the process for both the educator and evaluator. A Granby public school principal reports that this approach leads to greater buy-in to the goal by teachers and, one would think, a greater chance of success in achieving the goal as well.

Let me know what’s working in your district.

Travel Alert: New Measures Take Effect in Fall 2013

by

If you’re following the roll-out of the Massachusetts Educator Evaluation System, you already know that, in its current form, the system requires two forms of evidence– data gathered through observation and educator-submitted artifacts. In 2013-14, the Evaluation System requires that districts begin gathering student survey and student growth data. (Note: the use of these data in educator evaluation will require a return to the bargaining table.)

Student Growth Data   State regulations require the use of two measures of student growth for all teachers. Those educators currently teaching an MCAS or ACCESS-measured course are required to use one of those state assessments. Meeting this expectation will be especially challenging in untested subjects like art, music, and physical education. CES will lead a region-wide approach to building measures of student growth in these untested subjects. More guidance from the state about these new expectations can be found in Part VII of the state’s model system.

Student Surveys  These surveys may be electronically administered and apply to students in grades K-12. The regulations can be viewed here. Little guidance is available about how the survey results will be incorporated in the evaluation process; Kim Marshall proposes a reasonable strategy for doing so in a recent Education Leadership article (Note: full article access requires ASCD membership).