West Springfield

Show detailed information about district and contract

DistrictWest Springfield
Shared Contract District
Org Code3320000
Type of DistrictMunicipal K12
Union AffiliationMTA
Most Recent DocumentContract
Expiring Year2016
Expired Status
Superintendency Union
Regional HS Members
Vocational HS Members
CountyHampden
ESE RegionPioneer Valley
Urban
Kind of Communityurbanized centers
Number of Schools8
Enrollment3954
Percent Low Income Students43
Grade StartPK or K
Grade End12
download pdf version of this document view accessible version of this document West Springfield

ARTICLE 17

TEACHER EVALUATION

AGREEMENT

between

WEST SPRINGFIELD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

UNIT A

and

WEST SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL COMMITTEE

September 1, 2013 – August 31, 2016

Teacher and Caseload Educator Evaluation Agreement

(based upon M.G.L. , c. 71 §38)

1.   Purpose of Educator Evaluation

A.   This contract language has been locally negotiated and based on M.G.L., c.71, § 38; M.G.L. c.150E; the Educator Evaluation regulations, 603 CMR 35.00 et seq.; and the Model System for Educator Evaluation developed and which may be updated from time to time by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. See 603 CMR 35.02 (definition of model system). In the event of a conflict between this collective bargaining agreement and the governing laws and regulations, the laws and regulations will prevail.

B.   The regulatory purposes of evaluation are:

i.    To promote student learning, growth, and achievement by providing Educators with feedback for improvement, enhanced opportunities for professional growth, and clear structures for accountability, 603 CMR 35.01(2)(a);

ii.    To provide a record of facts and assessments for personnel decisions, 35.01(2)(b);

iii.   To ensure that every school committee has a system to enhance the professionalism and accountability of teachers and administrators that will enable them to assist all students to perform at high levels, 35.01(3); and

 iv.   To assure effective teaching and administrative leadership, 35.01(3).

2.   Definitions (* indicates definition is generally based on 603 CMR 35.02)

A.   *Artifacts of Professional Practice: Products of an Educator’s work and student work samples that demonstrate the Educator’s knowledge and skills with respect to specific performance standards.

B.   Caseload Educator: Educators who teach or counsel individual or small groups of students through consultation with the regular classroom teacher, for example, school nurses, guidance counselors, speech and language pathologists, and some reading specialists and special education teachers.

C.   Classroom teacher: Educators who teach preK-12 whole classes, and teachers of special subjects as such as art, music, library, and physical education. May also include special education teachers and reading specialists who teach whole classes.

D.   Categories of Evidence: Multiple measures of student learning, growth, and achievement, judgments based on observations and artifacts of professional practice, including unannounced observations of practice of any duration; and additional evidence relevant to one or more Standards of Effective Teaching Practice (603 CMR 35.03).

E.   Directory of Evidence: Educators will provide a directory of evidence to demonstrate their level of proficiency relative to each of the four standards. The directory will be a list of the evidence they have collected during the educator’s evaluation cycle and will be submitted to the evaluator no later than the required dates for submission of all evidence. Educators do not need to include actual evidence with the directory but instead must be prepared to provide the actual evidence listed in the directory within two working days if requested by the evaluator. The directory of evidence only applies to the four standards, not to the evidence required for the educator’s goals. Educators must provide actual evidence relative to the goals.

F.   *District-determined Measures: Measures of student learning, growth and achievement related to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, Massachusetts Vocational Technical Education Frameworks, or other relevant frameworks, that are comparable across grade or subject level district-wide. These measures may include, but shall not be limited to: portfolios approved commercial assessments and district-developed pre and post unit and course assessments, and capstone projects.

G.   *Educator(s): Inclusive term that applies to all classroom teachers and caseload educators, unless otherwise noted.

H.  *Educator Plan: The growth or improvement actions identified as part of each Educator’s evaluation. The type of plan is determined by the Educator’s career stage, overall performance rating, and the rating of impact on student learning, growth and achievement. There shall be four types of Educator Plans:

i.    Developing Educator Plan shall mean a plan developed by the Educator and the Evaluator for one school year or less for an Educator without Professional Teacher Status ( PTS); or, at the discretion of an Evaluator, for an Educator with PTS in a new assignment. If the Evaluator determines that an Educator with PTS should be placed on a Developing Educator Plan, the Evaluator must provide a written rationale to the superintendent and the Educator.

ii.    Self-Directed Growth Plan shall mean a plan developed by the Educator for one or two school years for Educators with PTS who are rated proficient or exemplary.

 iii.   Directed Growth Plan shall mean a plan developed by the Educator and the Evaluator of one school year or less for Educators with PTS who are rated needs improvement.

iv.   Improvement Plan shall mean a plan developed by the Evaluator of at least 30 calendar days and no more than one school year for Educators with PTS who are rated unsatisfactory with goals specific to improving the Educator’s unsatisfactory performance. In those cases where an Educator is rated unsatisfactory near the close of a school year, the plan may include activities during the summer proceeding the next school year.

I.    *ESE: The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

J.   *Evaluation: The ongoing process of defining goals and identifying, gathering, and using information as part of a process to improve professional performance (the “formative evaluation” and “formative assessment”) and to assess total job effectiveness and make personnel decisions (the “summative evaluation”).

K.   *Evaluator: Any person designated by a superintendent who has primary or supervisory responsibility for observation and evaluation. The superintendent is responsible for ensuring that all Evaluators have training in the principles of supervision and evaluation. Each Educator will have one primary Evaluator at any one time responsible for determining performance ratings.

i.    Primary Evaluator shall be the person who determines the Educator’s performance ratings and evaluation.

ii.    Supervising Evaluator shall be the person responsible for overseeing the development of the Educator Plan, supervising the Educator’s progress through formative assessments, evaluating the Educator’s progress toward attaining the Educator Plan goals, and making recommendations about the evaluation ratings to the primary Evaluator at the end of the Educator Plan. The supervising Evaluator may be the primary Evaluator or his/her designee.

iii.   Teaching Staff Assigned to More Than One Building: Each Educator who is assigned to more than one building will be evaluated by the appropriate administrator where the individual is assigned most of the time. The principal of each building in which the Educator serves must review and sign the evaluation, and may add written comments. In cases where there is no predominate assignment, the superintendent will determine who the primary Evaluator will be.

iv.   Notification: The Educator shall be notified in writing of his/her primary Evaluator and supervising Evaluator, if any, at the beginning of each new evaluation cycle. The Evaluator(s) may be changed upon notification in writing to the Educator.

L.   Evaluation Cycle: A five-component process that all Educators follow consisting of 1) Self-Assessment; 2) Goal-setting and Educator Plan development; 3) Implementation of the Plan; 4) Formative Assessment/Evaluation; and 5) Summative Evaluation.

M. *Experienced Educator: An educator with Professional Teacher Status (PTS).

N.  *Family: Includes students’ parents, legal guardians, foster parents, or primary caregivers.

O.  *Formative Assessment: The process used to assess progress towards attaining goals set forth in Educator plans, performance on standards, or both. This process may take place at any time(s) during the cycle of evaluation, but typically takes place at mid-cycle.

P.   *Formative Evaluation: An evaluation conducted at the end of Year 1 for an Educator on a 2-year Self-Directed Growth plan which is used to arrive at a rating on progress towards attaining the goals set forth in the Educator Plan, performance on Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice, or both.

Q.  *Goal: A specific, actionable, and measurable area of improvement as set forth in an Educator’s plan. A goal may pertain to any or all of the following: Educator practice in relation to Performance Standards, Educator practice in relation to indicators, or specified improvement in student learning, growth and achievement. Goals may be developed by individual Educators, by the Evaluator, or by teams, departments, or groups of Educators who have the same role.

R.  *Measurable: That which can be classified or estimated in relation to a scale, rubric, or standards.

S. Multiple Measures of Student Learning: Measures must include a combination of classroom, school and district assessments, student growth percentiles on state assessments, if state assessments are available, and student MEPA gain scores. This definition may be revised as required by regulations or agreement of the parties upon issuance of ESE guidance expected by July 2012.

T.   *Observation: A data gathering process that includes notes and judgments made during one or more classroom or worksite visits(s) of any duration (generally 10-30 minutes) by the Evaluator and may include examination of artifacts of practice including student work. An observation will occur in person. The parties agree to bargain the protocols of video observations should either party wish to adopt such practice. Classroom or worksite observations conducted pursuant to this article must result in feedback to the Educator.   Normal supervisory responsibilities of department, building and district administrators will also cause administrators to drop in on classes and other activities in the worksite at various times as deemed necessary by the administrator. Carrying out these supervisory responsibilities, when they do not result in targeted and constructive feedback to the Educator, are not observations as defined in this Article.

U.  Parties: The parties to this agreement are the local school committee and the employee organization that represents the Educators covered by this agreement for purposes of collective bargaining (“Employee Organization/Association”).

V. *Performance Rating: Describes the Educator’s performance on each performance standard and overall. There shall be four performance ratings:

•    Exemplary: the Educator’s performance consistently and significantly exceeds the requirements of a standard or overall. The rating of exemplary on a standard indicates that practice significantly exceeds proficient and could serve as a model of practice on that standard district-wide.

•    Proficient: the Educator’s performance fully and consistently meets the requirements of a standard or overall. Proficient practice is understood to be fully satisfactory.

•    Needs Improvement: the Educator’s performance on a standard or overall is below the requirements of a standard or overall, but is not considered to be unsatisfactory at this time. Improvement is necessary and expected.

•    Unsatisfactory: the Educator’s performance on a standard or overall has not significantly improved following a rating of needs improvement, or the Educator’s performance is consistently below the requirements of a standard or overall and is considered inadequate, or both.

W. *Performance Standards: Locally developed standards and indicators pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71, § 38 and consistent with, and supplemental to 603 CMR 35.00. The parties may agree to limit standards and indicators to those set forth in 603 CMR 35.03.

X.   *Professional Teacher Status: PTS is the status granted to an Educator pursuant to M.G.L. c.71, § 41.

Y.   Rating of Educator Impact on Student Learning: A rating of high, moderate or low based on trends and patterns on state assessments and district-determined measures. The parties will negotiate the process for using state and district-determined measures to arrive at an Educator’s rating of impact on student learning, growth and achievement, using guidance and model contract language from ESE.

Z.   Rating of Overall Educator Performance: The Educator’s overall performance rating is based on the Evaluator’s professional judgment and examination of evidence of the Educator’s performance against the four Performance Standards and the Educator’s attainment of goals set forth in the Educator Plan, as follows:

i.    Standard 1: Curriculum, Planning and Assessment

ii.    Standard 2: Teaching All Students

iii.   Standard 3: Family and Community Engagement

iv.   Standard 4: Professional Culture

v.   Attainment of Professional Practice Goal(s)

vi.   Attainment of Student Learning Goal(s)

AA. *Rubric: A scoring tool that describes characteristics of practice or artifacts at different levels of performance. The rubrics for Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice are used to rate Educators on Performance Standards, these rubrics consists of:

i.    Standards: Describes broad categories of professional practice, including those required in 603 CMR 35.03

 ii.    Indicators: Describes aspects of each standard, including those required in 603 CMR 35.03

 iii    Elements: Defines the individual components under each indicator

 iv.   Descriptors: Describes practice at four levels of performance for each element

BB. *Summative Evaluation: An evaluation used to arrive at a rating on each standard, an overall rating, and as a basis to make personnel decisions. The summative evaluation includes the Evaluator’s judgments of the Educator’s performance against Performance Standards and the Educator’s attainment of goals set forth in the Educator’s Plan.

CC. *Superintendent: The person employed by the school committee pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71 §59 and §59A. The superintendent is responsible for the implementation of 603 CMR 35.00.

DD. *Teacher: An Educator employed in a position requiring a certificate or license as described in 603 CMR 7.04(3)(a, b, and d) and in the area of vocational education as provided in 603 CMR 4.00. Teachers may include, for example, classroom teachers, librarians, guidance counselors, or school nurses.

EE. *Trends in student learning: At least two years of data from the district-determined measures and state assessments used in determining the Educator’s rating on impact on student learning as high, moderate or low.

3.   Performance Standards

The Parties agree to use the standards and indicators to those set forth in 603 CMR 35.03. A subcommittee consisting of the superintendent, selected principals, and WSEA leaders will meet to select the high priority indicators, and they will update this selection when needed. The agreed-upon indicators will be shared with all Educators prior to the start of the school year.

4.   Evidence Used In Evaluation

ESE will provide model contract language and guidance on rating Educator impact on student learning growth based on state and district-determined measures of student learning. Upon receiving this model contract language and guidance, the parties agree to bargain with respect to the multiple measures of student learning, growth, and achievement.

The following categories of evidence shall be used in evaluating each Educator:

A.   Judgments based on observations and artifacts of practice including:

i.    Unannounced observations of practice of any duration.

ii.    Announced observation(s) for non-PTS Educators in their first year of practice in a school, Educators on Improvement Plans, and as determined by the Evaluator.

iii.   Examination of Educator work products.

iv.   Examination of student work samples.

v.    A subcommittee consisting of the superintendent, selected principals, and WSEA leaders will meet when new Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice (See Appendix A: Teacher Rubric) are selected. At this time, the suggested amount and types of artifacts and evidence that Evaluators and Educators are expected to collect will be determined. The superintendent or WSEA leaders can request a meeting to update this list.

B.   Evidence relevant to one or more Performance Standards, including but not limited to: i.    Evidence compiled and presented by the Educator, including:

a.   Directory of evidence of fulfillment of professional responsibilities and growth such as self-assessments, peer collaboration, professional development linked to goals in the Educator plans, contributions to the school community and professional culture;

b.   Directory of evidence of active outreach to and engagement with families, such as class newsletters/updates, participation in open house or other evening events, parent communication logs;

ii.    Evidence of progress towards professional practice goal(s);

iii.   Evidence of progress toward student learning outcomes goal(s); and

iv.   Any other relevant evidence from the Educator’s classroom or worksite that the Evaluator shares with the Educator. Other relevant evidence could include information provided by other administrators from the Educator’s building and the superintendent. To include other relevant evidence in an Educator’s Summative Evaluation Report, it must be supported by other sources of evidence and must be brought to the attention of the Educator in a timely manner and prior to being included in the Summative Evaluation Report.

5.   Rubric

The rubrics are a scoring tool used for the Educator’s self-assessment, the formative assessment, the formative evaluation and the summative evaluation. The parties agree to use the rubrics provided by ESE.

6.   Evaluation Cycle: Training

Prior to the implementation of the new evaluation process contained in this article, districts shall arrange training for all Educators, principals, and other evaluators that outlines the components of the new evaluation process and provides an explanation of the evaluation cycle. The district through the superintendent shall determine the type and quality of training based on guidance provided by ESE.

A.   By September 15 of the first year of this agreement, all Educators shall complete a professional learning activity about self-assessment and goal-setting satisfactory to the superintendent or principal. Any Educator hired after the September 15 date, and who has not previously completed such an activity, shall complete such a professional learning activity about self-assessment and goal-setting within three weeks of the date of hire. The district through the superintendent shall determine the type and quality of the learning activity based on guidance provided by ESE.

7.   Evaluation Cycle: Annual Orientation

A.   At the start of each school year, the superintendent, principal or designee shall conduct a meeting for Educators and Evaluators focused substantially on Educator evaluation. The superintendent, principal or designee shall:

 i.    Provide an overview of the evaluation process, including goal setting and the educator plans.

ii.    Provide all Educators with directions for obtaining a copy of the forms used by the district. These may be electronically provided.

iii.   The faculty meeting may be digitally recorded to facilitate orientation of Educators hired after the beginning of the school year.

8.   Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment

A.   Completing the Self-Assessment

i.    The evaluation cycle begins with the Educator completing and submitting to the Primary or Supervising Evaluator a self-assessment (See Appendix B: Self-Assessment Form) by October 1st or within four weeks of the start of their employment at the school.

ii.    The self-assessment includes:

a.   An analysis of evidence of student learning, growth and achievement for students under the Educator’s responsibility.

b.   An assessment of practice against each of the four Performance Standards of effective practice using the district’s rubric.

c.    Proposed goals to pursue:

1.   At least one goal directly related to improving the Educator’s own professional practice.

2.   At least one goal directed related to improving student learning.

B.   Proposing the goals

i.    Educators must consider goals for grade-level, subject-area, department teams, or other groups of Educators who share responsibility for student learning and results, except as provided in (ii) below. Educators will meet with other Educators whom they share responsibility for student learning and results to establish team goals (See Appendix C: Goal Setting and Educator Plan Form). Evaluators may participate in such meetings.

ii.    For Educators in their first year of practice, the Evaluator or his/her designee will meet with each Educator by October 1st (or within four weeks of the Educator’s first day of employment if the Educator begins employment after September 15th) to assist the Educator in completing the self-assessment and drafting the professional practice and student learning goals which must include induction and mentoring activities.

iii.   Unless the Evaluator indicates that an Educator in his/her second or third years of practice should continue to address induction and mentoring goals pursuant to 603 CMR 7.12, the Educator may address shared grade level or subject area team goals.

iv.  For Educators with PTS and ratings of proficient or exemplary, the goals may be solely team goals, and in limited cases, when a logical team is not available, goals may be individual. In addition, these Educators may include individual professional practice goals that address enhancing skills that enable the Educator to share proficient practices with colleagues or develop leadership skills.

v. For Educators with PTS and ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory, the professional practice goal(s) must address specific standards and indicators identified for improvement and be written as an individual goal(s). In addition, the goals must include shared grade level or subject area team goals.

9.   Evaluation Cycle: Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan

A.   Every Educator has an Educator Plan that includes, but is not limited to, one goal related to the improvement of practice; one goal for the improvement of student learning (See Appendix C: Goal Setting and Educator Plan Form). The Plan also outlines actions the Educator must take to attain the goals established in the Plan and evidence the Educator will collect to document completion of the goals. Goals may be developed by individual Educators, by the Evaluator, or by teams, departments, or groups of Educators who have similar roles and/or responsibilities (See Section 7B). See Sections 15-19 for more on Educator Plans.

B.   Goals Setting and Educator Plan Development Meetings shall be conducted as follows:

i.    Educators in the same school will meet with the Evaluator in teams and/or individually at the end of the previous evaluation cycle or by October 1st of the next academic year to review the development of their Educator Plans. Educators shall not be expected to meet during the summer hiatus.

ii.    For those Educators new to the school, the meeting with the Evaluator to establish the Educator Plan must occur by October 15th or within six weeks of the start of their assignment in that school

iii.   The Evaluator shall meet individually with Educators with PTS and ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory to develop professional practice goal(s) that must address specific standards and indicators identified for improvement. In addition, the goals may address shared grade level or subject matter goals.

C.   The Educator proposes the Goals Setting and Educator Plan using the forms provided by the district (See Appendix C: Goal Setting and Educator Plan Form no later than October 15. The Evaluator will review the Goals Setting and Educator Plan and return the Goals Setting and Educator Plan to the Educator with any recommended changes, if needed, within five days. While stylistic and/or grammatical changes can be made without a conference, the Evaluator will hold a conference within five days of receipt of the Plan with the Educator to explain any substantive changes. The Educator shall sign the Goals Setting and Educator Plan within 5 school days of its receipt and may include a written response. The Educator’s signature indicates that the Educator received the plan in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents. The Evaluator retains final authority over the content of the Educator’s Goals Setting and Educator Plan.

10.    Evaluation Cycle: Observation of Practice and Examination of Artifacts – Educators without PTS (See Appendix E: Evaluator Record of Evidence Form)

A.   In the first year of practice or first year assigned to a school:

i.   The Educator shall have at least one announced observation during the school year using the protocol described in section 11B, below.

ii. The Educator shall have at least five unannounced observations during the school year.

B.   In their second and third years of practice or second and third years as a non-PTS Educator in the school:

i. The Educator shall have at least four unannounced observations during the school year.

11.    Evaluation Cycle: Observation of Practice and Examination of Artifacts – Educators with PTS (See Appendix E: Evaluator Record of Evidence Form)

A.   The Educator whose overall rating is proficient or exemplary must have at least two unannounced observation during the evaluation cycle.

B.   The Educator whose overall rating is needs improvement must be observed according to the Directed Growth Plan during the period of Plan which must include at least three unannounced observations.

C.   The Educator whose overall rating is unsatisfactory must be observed according to the Improvement Plan which must include both unannounced and announced observation. The number and frequency of the observations shall be determined by the Evaluator, but in no case, for Improvement Plans of one year, shall there be fewer than one announced and four unannounced observations. For Improvement Plans of six months or fewer, there must be no fewer than one announced and two unannounced observations.

12.    Observations

It is recommended that the Evaluator’s first observation of the Educator should take place by November 15. Observations required by the Educator Plan should be completed by May 15th. The Evaluator may conduct additional observations after this date.

The Evaluator is not required nor expected to review all the indicators in a rubric during an observation. However, feedback from the observation must at least in part relate to the Educator’s goals or a specific component of the District’s rubric.

A.   Unannounced Observations

i.    Unannounced observations are meant to be completed frequently and conducted for a short duration (generally 10-30 minutes). On rare occasion an evaluator may choose to conduct an unannounced observation for an entire class period. Unannounced observations may be in the form of Administrative Walkthroughs, or any other means deemed useful by the Evaluator, principal, superintendent or other administrator and agreed upon in writing between the superintendent and the WSEA. Examples of worksite visitations could include observations of parent conferences, IEP meetings, participation in professional meetings, etc.

ii.    The Educator will be provided with at least brief written feedback from the Evaluator within 2-3 school days of the observation. The written feedback shall be delivered to the Educator in person, by email with read receipt, or mailed to the Educator’s home via certified mail using the cumulative Evaluator Record of Evidence Form (See Appendix E: Evaluator Record of Evidence Form). If the district adopts an online system to implement the new educator evaluation system, Educators will be provided with time-stamped written feedback through this online system.

iii.   Any observation or series of observations resulting in one or more standards judged to be unsatisfactory or needs improvement for the first time must be followed by at least one observation of at least 30 minutes in duration within 30 school days.

B.   Announced Observations

i.    All non-PTS Educators in their first year in the school, PTS Educators on Improvement Plans and other Educators at the discretion of the Evaluator shall have at least one Announced Observation.

a.    The Evaluator shall select the date and time of the lesson or activity to be observed and discuss with the Educator any specific goal(s) for the observation.

b.   Within 5 school days of the scheduled observation, the Evaluator and Educator will meet for a pre-observation conference. At the meeting, the Educator may inform the Evaluator in writing of the nature of the lesson, the student population served, and any other information that will assist the Evaluator to assess performance.

1.   Prior to the observation, the Educator shall provide the Evaluator a draft of the lesson, student conference, IEP plan or activity. If the actual plan is different, the Educator will provide the Evaluator with a copy prior to the observation.

2.   The Educator will be notified as soon as possible if the Evaluator will not be able to attend the scheduled observation. The observation will be rescheduled with the Educator as soon as reasonably practical.

c.    Within 5 school days of the observation, the Evaluator and Educator shall meet for a post-observation conference. This timeframe may be extended due to unavailability on the part of either the Evaluator or the Educator, but shall be rescheduled within 24 hours if possible.

d.   The Evaluator shall provide the Educator with written feedback within 5 school days of the post-observation conference (See Appendix F: Announced Observation Form). The Educator shall sign the Announced Observation Form within 5 school days of its receipt. For any standard where the Educator’s practice was found to be unsatisfactory or needs improvement, the feedback must:

1.   Describe the basis for the Evaluator’s judgment.

2.   Describe actions the Educator should take to improve his/her performance.

3.   Identify support and/or resources the Educator may use in his/her improvement.

4.   State that the Educator is responsible for addressing the need for improvement.

5.   The Educator shall sign the Announced Observation Form indicating unsatisfactory judgment within 5 school days of its receipt and may include a written response. The Educator’s signature indicates that the Educator received the Announced Observation Form in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents.

13.     Evaluation Cycle: Formative Assessment for Non-PTS Teachers or PTS Teachers who Have Received Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory Ratings

A.   A specific purpose for evaluation is to promote student learning, growth and achievement by providing Educators with feedback for improvement. Evaluators are expected to make frequent unannounced visits to classrooms. Evaluators are expected to give targeted constructive feedback to Educators based on their observations of practice, examination of artifacts, and analysis of multiple measures of student learning, growth and achievement in relation to the Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice.

B.   Formative assessment for Non-PTS teachers or PTS teachers who have received needs improvement or unsatisfactory ratings may be ongoing throughout the evaluation cycle but typically takes places mid-cycle when a Formative Assessment Report is completed. For an Educator on a two-year Self-Directed Growth Plan, the mid-cycle Formative Assessment Report is replaced by the Formative Evaluation Report at the end of year one. See section 13, below.

C.   The Formative Assessment Report provides written feedback to the Educator about his/her progress towards attaining the goals set forth in the Educator Plan, performance on Performance Standards and overall, or both.

D.   By January 5, the Educator shall provide to the Evaluator a directory of evidence of the Educator’s performance against the four Performance Standards. The Educator will also provide actual evidence of progress on attaining professional practice and student learning goals (See Appendix G: Educator Collection of Evidence Form).

E.   Upon the request of either the Evaluator or the Educator, the Evaluator and the Educator will meet either before or after completion of the Formative Assessment Report. A meeting after the completion of the Formative Assessment Report must occur by February 15.

F.   The Evaluator shall complete the Formative Assessment Report (See Appendix H: Mid-Cycle Formative Assessment Report Form) and provide a copy to the Educator. All Formative Assessment reports must be signed by the Evaluator and delivered face-to-face or to the Educator’s school mailbox or home via certified mail by February 1.

G.   The Educator may reply in writing to the Formative Assessment Report within 5 school days of receiving the report (See Appendix J: Educator Response Form).

H.  The Educator shall sign the Formative Assessment Report within 5 school days of receiving the report. The signature indicates that the Educator received the Formative Assessment Report in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents.

I.    As a result of the Formative Assessment Report, the Evaluator may change the activities in the Educator Plan.

J.   If the rating in the Formative Assessment Report differs from the last summative rating the Educator received, the Evaluator may place the Educator on a different Educator Plan, appropriate to the new rating.

14.     Evaluation Cycle: Formative Evaluation for Two Year Self-Directed Plans Only

A.   Educators on two year Self-Directed Growth Educator Plans receive a Formative Evaluation Report near the end of the first year of the two year cycle. The Educator’s performance rating for that year shall be assumed to be the same as the previous summative rating unless evidence demonstrates a significant change in performance in which case the rating on the Performance Standards may change, and the Evaluator may place the Educator on a different Educator plan, appropriate to the new rating.

B.   The Formative Evaluation Report provides written feedback and ratings to the Educator about his/her progress towards attaining the goals set forth in the Educator Plan, performance on each Performance Standard and overall, or both.

C.   By May 15, the Educator shall provide to the Evaluator a directory of evidence of the Educator’s performance against the four Performance Standards. The Educator will also provide actual evidence of progress on attaining professional practice and student learning goals (See Appendix G: Educator Collection of Evidence Form).

D.   The Evaluator shall complete the Formative Evaluation Report (See Appendix K: Formative Evaluation Report Form) by June 1 of Year 1 of the two-year cycle and provide a copy to the Educator. All Formative Evaluation Reports must be signed by the Evaluator and delivered face-to-face, to the Educator’s school mailbox or home via certified mail by June 1.

E.   Upon the request of either the Evaluator or the Educator, the Evaluator and the Educator will meet either before or after completion of the Formative Evaluation Report. In the event that an Educator’s rating is changed to either needs improvement or unsatisfactory, a meeting after the completion of the Formative Evaluation Report must occur by the end of the school year and can include the superintendent at the request of either the Educator or Evaluator.

F.   The Educator may reply in writing to the Formative Evaluation Report within 5 school days of receiving the report (See Appendix J: Educator Response Form).

G.   The Educator shall sign the Formative Evaluation report by within 5 school days of receiving the report. The signature indicates that the Educator received the Formative Evaluation Report in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents.

H.  As a result of the Formative Evaluation Report, the Evaluator may change the activities in the Educator Plan.

I.    If the rating in the Formative Evaluation Report differs from the last summative rating the Educator received, the Evaluator may place the Educator on a different Educator Plan, appropriate to the new rating.

15.  Evaluation Cycle: Summative Evaluation

A.   The evaluation cycle concludes with a Summative Evaluation Report. For Educators on a one or two year Educator Plan, the Summative Evaluation Report must be written and provided to the Educator by May 15th.

B.   The Evaluator determines a rating on each standard and an overall rating based on the Evaluator’s professional judgment, an examination of evidence against the Performance Standards and evidence of the attainment of the Educator Plan goals.

C.   The professional judgment of the primary Evaluator shall determine the overall summative rating that the Educator receives.

D.   For an Educator whose overall performance rating is exemplary or proficient and whose impact on student learning is low, the Evaluator’s supervisor shall discuss and review the rating with the Evaluator and the supervisor shall confirm or revise the Educator’s rating. In cases where the superintendent serves as the Primary Evaluator, the superintendent’s decision on the rating shall not be subject to review. Upon receiving DESE guidance relative to Educator’s impact on student learning, the Parties agree to bargain with respect to this matter.

E.   The summative evaluation rating must be based on evidence from multiple categories of evidence. MCAS Growth Scores shall not be the sole basis for a summative evaluation rating.

F.   To be rated proficient overall, the Educator shall, at a minimum, have been rated proficient on the Curriculum, Planning and Assessment and the Teaching All Students Standards of Effective Teaching Practice.

G.   By April 15, the Educator shall provide to the Evaluator a directory of evidence of the Educator’s performance against the four Performance Standards. The Educator will also provide actual evidence of progress on attaining professional practice and student learning goals (See Appendix G: Educator Collection of Evidence Form).

H.      The Summative Evaluation Report should recognize areas of strength as well as identify recommendations for professional growth.

I.     The Evaluator shall deliver a signed copy of the Summative Evaluation Report (See Appendix L: Summative Evaluation Report Form) to the Educator face-to-face, to the Educator’s school mailbox or home via certified mail no later than June 1.

J.   The Evaluator shall meet with the Educator rated needs improvement or unsatisfactory to discuss the summative evaluation. The meeting shall occur by June 1st.

K.   The Evaluator may meet with the Educator rated proficient or exemplary to discuss the summative evaluation, if either the Educator or the Evaluator requests such a meeting. The meeting shall occur by June 10th.

L. Upon mutual agreement, the Educator and the Evaluator may develop the Self-Directed Growth Plan for the following two years during the meeting on the Summative Evaluation Report.

M. The Educator shall sign the final Summative Evaluation Report by June 15th. The signature indicates that the Educator received the Summative Evaluation Report in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents.

N. The Educator shall have the right to respond in writing to the summative evaluation which shall become part of the final Summative Evaluation Report (See Appendix J: Educator Response Form).

O.  A copy of the signed final Summative Evaluation Report shall be signed by the superintendent and filed in the Educator’s personnel file. The superintendent shall have the right to review all written materials used to complete the Summative Evaluation Report. At the request of the Educator or the Evaluator, the superintendent will meet with the Educator, Evaluator, and a representative of the WSEA at the same time to clarify the issues.

16. Educator Plans – General

A.   Educator Plans shall be designed to provide Educators with feedback for improvement, professional growth, and leadership; and to ensure Educator effectiveness and overall system accountability. The Plan must be aligned to the standards and indicators and be consistent with district and school goals.

B.   The Educator Plan shall include, but is not limited to:

i.    At least one goal related to improvement of practice tied to one or more Performance Standards;

ii.    At least one goal for the improvement the learning, growth and achievement of the students under the Educator’s responsibility;

iii.   An outline of actions the Educator must take to attain the goals and evidence to document progress. Actions must include specified professional development and learning activities that the Educator will participate in as a means of obtaining the goals, as well as other support that may be suggested by the Evaluator or provided by the school or district. Examples may include but are not limited to coursework, self-study, action research, curriculum development, study groups with peers, and implementing new programs.

C.  It is the Educator’s responsibility to attain the goals in the Plan and to participate in any trainings and professional development provided through the state, district, or other providers in accordance with the Educator Plan.

17. Educator Plans: Developing Educator Plan

A.   The Developing Educator Plan is for all Educators without PTS, and, at the discretion of the Evaluator, for Educators with PTS in new assignments. If the Evaluator determines that an Educator with PTS should be placed on a Developing Educator Plan, the Evaluator must provide a written rationale to the superintendent and the Educator.

B.   The Educator shall be evaluated at least annually.

18. Educator Plans: Self-Directed Growth Plan

A.   A Two-year Self-Directed Growth Plan is for those Educators with PTS who have an overall rating of proficient or exemplary, and after 2013-2014 whose impact on student learning is moderate or high. A Formative Evaluation Report is completed at the end of year 1 and a Summative Evaluation Report at the end of year 2.

B.   A One-year Self-Directed Growth Plan is for those Educators with PTS who have an overall rating of proficient or exemplary, and after 2015-2016 whose impact on student learning is low. In this case, the Evaluator and Educator shall analyze the discrepancy between the summative evaluation rating and the rating for impact on student learning to seek to determine the cause(s) of the discrepancy.

19. Educator Plans: Directed Growth Plan

A.   A Directed Growth Plan is for those Educators with PTS whose overall rating is needs improvement.

B.   The goals in the Plan must address areas identified as needing improvement as determined by the Evaluator.

C.   The Evaluator shall complete a Summative Evaluation Report for the Educator at the end of the period determined by the Plan, but at least annually, and in no case later than June 1.

D.   For an Educator on a Directed Growth Plan whose overall performance rating is at least proficient, the Evaluator will place the Educator on a Self-Directed Growth Plan for the next evaluation cycle.

E.   For an Educator on a Directed Growth Plan whose overall performance rating is not at least proficient, the Evaluator will rate the Educator as unsatisfactory and will place the Educator on an Improvement Plan for the next evaluation cycle.

20. Educator Plans: Improvement Plan

A.   An Improvement Plan is for those Educators with PTS whose overall rating is unsatisfactory.

B.   The Parties agree that in order to provide students with the best instruction, it may be necessary from time to time to place an Educator whose practice has been rated as unsatisfactory on an Improvement Plan of no fewer than 30 calendar days and no more than one school year. In the case of an Educator receiving a rating of unsatisfactory near the close of one school year, the Improvement Plan may include activities that occur during the summer before the next school year begins, such as self-directed study, training, workshop, and coursework.

C.   The Evaluator must complete a Summative Evaluation Report for the Educator at the end of the period determined by the Evaluator for the Plan.

D.   An Educator on an Improvement Plan shall be assigned a supervising Evaluator (see definitions). The supervising Evaluator is responsible for providing the Educator with guidance and assistance in accessing the resources and professional development outlined in the Improvement Plan. The primary Evaluator may be the supervising Evaluator.

E.   The Improvement Plan shall define the problem(s) of practice identified through the observations and evaluation and detail the improvement goals to be met, the activities the Educator must take to improve and the assistance to be provided to the Educator by the district.

F.   The Improvement Plan process shall include:

i.    Within ten school days of notification to the Educator that the Educator is being placed on an Improvement Plan, the Evaluator shall schedule a meeting with the Educator to discuss the Improvement Plan. The Evaluator will develop the Improvement Plan, which will include the provision of specific assistance to the Educator.

ii.    The Educator may request that a representative of the Employee Organization/Association attend the meeting(s).

iii.   If the Educator consents, the Employee Organization/Association will be informed that an Educator has been placed on an Improvement Plan.

G.   The Improvement Plan shall:

i.    Define the improvement goals directly related to the Performance Standard(s) and/or student learning outcomes that must be improved;

ii.    Describe the activities and work products the Educator must complete as a means of improving performance;.

iii.   Describe the assistance that the district will make available to the Educator;

iv.   Articulate the measurable outcomes that will be accepted as evidence of improvement;

v.   Detail the timeline for completion of each component of the Plan, including at a minimum a Mid-Cycle Formative Assessment Report of the relevant standard(s) and indicator(s);

vi.   Identify the individuals assigned to assist the Educator which must include minimally the supervising Evaluator; and,

vii.    Include the signatures of the Educator and supervising Evaluator.

H.     A copy of the signed Plan shall be provided to the Educator. The Educator’s signature indicates that the Educator received the Improvement Plan in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents.

I.    Decision on the Educator’s status at the conclusion of the Improvement Plan.

i.    All determinations below must be made no later than June 1. One of three decisions must be made at the conclusion of the Improvement Plan:

a.       If the Evaluator determines that the Educator has improved his/her practice to the level of proficiency, the Educator will be placed on a Self-Directed Growth Plan.

b.       In those cases where the Educator was placed on an Improvement Plan as a result of his/her summative rating at the end of his/her Directed Growth Plan, if the Evaluator determines that the Educator is making substantial progress toward proficiency, the Evaluator shall place the Educator on a Directed Growth Plan.

c.       In those cases where the Educator was placed on an Improvement Plan as a result of his/her Summative rating at the end of his/her Directed Growth Plan, if the Evaluator determines that the Educator is not making substantial progress toward proficiency, the Evaluator shall recommend to the superintendent that the Educator be dismissed.

d.       If the Evaluator determines that the Educator’s practice remains at the level of unsatisfactory, the Evaluator shall recommend to the superintendent that the Educator be dismissed.

21. Timelines

Activity:

Completed By:

1. Superintendent, principal or designee meets with Evaluators and Educators to explain evaluation process. Evaluator informs educator of the name of his/her primary evaluator and supervising evaluator (if appropriate).

September 15

2. Evaluator meets with first-year Educators to assist in self-assessment and goal setting process or within 4 weeks of hire date if hired after September 15. Educator submits self-assessment.

October 1

3. Evaluator meets with Educators in teams or individually to establish Educator Plans (Goal Setting and Educator Plan may be established at Summative Evaluation Report meeting in prior school year)

Prior to October 15

4. Educator submits Goal Setting and Plan Form

October 15

5. Evaluator reviews and responds to Educator Goals Setting and Educator Plans within 5 school days

October 20

6. Evaluator should complete first observation of each Educator

November 15

7. Any educator receiving a formative assessment (i.e., an educator on a one year developing educator plan, directed growth plan, or improvement plan) submits evidence on goals and a directory of evidence on standards. *or four weeks before Formative Assessment Report date established by Evaluator

January 5*

8. Evaluator should complete mid-cycle Formative Assessment Reports for Educators on one-year Educator Plans

February 1

9.   Evaluator holds Formative Assessment Meeting if requested by either Evaluator or Educator

February 15

10. Educator submits evidence on goals and a directory of evidence on standards. *or 4 weeks prior to Summative Evaluation Report date established by evaluator

April 15* (For Educators receiving Summative Evaluations) May 15 (For Educators receiving Formative Evaluations)

11. Evaluator delivers Summative Evaluation Report to the Educator

June 1

12. Evaluator meets with Educators whose overall summative evaluation ratings are needs improvement or unsatisfactory

June 5

13. Evaluator meets with Educators whose ratings are proficient or exemplary at request of Evaluator or Educator

June 10

14. Educator signs Summative Evaluation Report and adds response, if any.

June 15

15. For Educators on an Improvement Plan, the Evaluator must complete a Summative Evaluation Report for the Educator

At the end of the period determined by the Evaluator for the Plan

A.   Educators with PTS on Two Year Plans

Activity:

Completed By:

Evaluator completes unannounced observation(s)

Any time during the 2-year evaluation cycle

Evaluator completes Formative Evaluation Report

June 1 of Year 1

Evaluator conducts Formative Evaluation Meeting, if any

June 1 of Year 1

Evaluator completes Summative Evaluation Report

May 15 of Year 2

Evaluator conducts Summative Evaluation Meeting, if any

June 10 of Year 2

Evaluator and Educator sign Summative Evaluation Report

June 15 of Year 2

B.   Educators on Plans of Less than One Year

i. The timeline for educators on Plans of less than one year will be established in the Educator Plan.

22. Rating of Educator Impact on Student Learning (ISL)

A.  Basis of the Impact on Student Learning Rating

i.    The following student performance measures shall be used in combination with professional judgment to determine an educator's impact on student learning, growth, and achievement.

a.   Statewide growth measure(s),

1.   Where available, statewide growth measures must be selected each year as one of the measures used to determine the educator’s ISL.

2.   Where available, statewide growth measures include the MCAS Student Growth Percentile, or its equivalent, and ACCESS and gain score for ELLs.

b.   District Determined Measures (DDMs) of student learning, growth, or achievement

B.   Identifying and Selecting District-Determined Measures

i.    Each educator will work as an individual or on a team to develop a student learning goal and a plan to achieve that goal (see Appendix C). As part of the planning process, the educator will define the evidence he/she will collect to measure the ISL during the evaluation cycle. With approval of his/her evaluator, that body of evidence will be used as the educator’s district-determined measure.

ii.    The West Springfield Educator Evaluation Steering Committee will meet quarterly during each school year. The committee will be composed of WSEA leaders, building representatives, the superintendent and building administrators. At each meeting the committee will review the DDM process and ensure consistent implementation of DDMs across the district.

C.   DDM Selection Criteria

i.    DDMs shall consist of direct or indirect measures.

a.   A direct measure assesses student growth in a specific content area or domain of social-emotional or behavioral learning over time.

1.   For all classroom educators, at least one measure in each year that will be used to determine an educator’s ISL must be a direct measure.

2.   Direct measures include, but are not limited to, criterion referenced or statewide measures such as: formative, interim and unit pre-and post-assessments in specific subjects, assessments of growth based on performances and/or portfolios of student work judged against common scoring rubrics, and mid-year and end-of-course examinations.

b.   Indirect measures do not measure student growth in a specific content area or domain of social-emotional or behavioral learning but do measure the consequences of that learning.

1.   Indirect measures include, but are not limited to, changes in: promotion and graduation rates, attendance and tardiness rates, rigorous course-taking pattern rates, college course matriculation and course remediation rates, discipline referral and other behavior rates, and other measures of student engagement and progress.

ii.    DDMs must be comparable across grade, subject level school-wide or content area district-wide for specialized instructional support personnel.

iii.   The body of evidence that an educator collects for his/her student learning goal constitutes the educators’ DDM. Educators will use consistent, transparent, and reliable scoring processes and administration guidelines for the evidence they collect. Scoring processes and administration guidelines will be developed and refined by educators and administrators on an ongoing basis.

iv.   DDMs must be aligned to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, Massachusetts Vocational Technical Education Frameworks, or other relevant Frameworks.

D.   Professional Development Relating to DDMs

i.    The district shall arrange professional development for all educators, principals, and other evaluators that outlines the components of the ISL and prepares educators to collect ISL data through the goal setting and planning process. The district through the superintendent and the Educator Evaluation Steering Committee shall determine the type and quality of professional development based on guidance provided by ESE. Professional development topics may include, but not be limited to, an overview of DDMs and the ISL, the district’s DDM implementation plans, and a suggested list of assessments that can be used as DDMs.

E.   Evaluator/Educator Conferences Related to ISL

i.    If an educator will be rated as having proficient or high ISL, the evaluator is not required to meet with the educator prior to the completion of the educator’s formative or summative evaluation. However, if an educator will possibly be rated as having low ISL, the evaluator is required to meet with the educator prior to the completion of the educator’s formative or summative evaluation. This meeting must occur between the date by which the educator submits his/her evidence and the due date for the formative or summative evaluation.

F.   Preliminary and Final Ratings of ISL

i.    For the body of evidence that constitutes an educator’s DDM, the evaluator will determine whether in general, the educator’s ISL is high, proficient, or low. The evaluator’s determination will result in a designation of high, proficient, or low impact for the educator for the entire body of evidence collected during the evaluation cycle. Based on this determination, and in support of the continuous growth and development of the educator, the evaluator may recommend modifications to the educator’s instructional practice.

ii.    The educator will receive either a preliminary rating or final rating of ISL depending upon where the educator is in the evaluation cycle. The preliminary rating provides an initial indicator of the trends emerging from the body of evidence collected by the educator.

iii.   Two Year Self-Directed Growth Plans

For an educator on a two-year self-directed growth plan, he/she will receive a preliminary rating of ISL on his/her formative evaluation.   The educator will then receive a final rating of ISL at end of his/her evaluation cycle on the summative evaluation form.

iv.   One Year Self-Directed Growth Plans

An educator cannot be placed on a one year self-directed growth plan until the 2016-17 school year at the earliest because this option is not available for any educator until his/her evaluation cycle including DDMs is completed one time. The use of preliminary and final ratings for educators on one year self-directed growth plans will be determined during the 2015-16 school year.

v.   Directed Growth Plans

For an educator on a directed growth plan, he/she will receive a preliminary rating of ISL on the summative evaluation.

vi.   Developing Educator Plans

For an educator on a developing educator plan, he/she will receive a preliminary rating of ISL on the summative evaluation at the end of his/her first and second evaluation cycle. The developing educator will receive a final rating of ISL on his/her summative evaluation at the end of the third evaluation cycle.

vii. Improvement Plan

Educators who are assigned an improvement plan after having completed a Self-Directed Growth Plan (and having received an unsatisfactory rating) will receive a preliminary rating of ISL on his/her summative evaluation. Educators who are assigned an Improvement Plan after having completed a Directed Plan will receive a final rating of ISL on his/her summative evaluation at the end of the evaluation cycle.

G.  Determining an ISL

i.    The evaluator shall use his/her professional judgment to determine whether an educator is having a high, proficient, or low impact on student learning based upon the educator’s student learning goal. The evaluator will consider the designations of impact (high, proficient, or low) from at least two measures (a statewide growth measure must be used as one measure, where available) in each of at least two years and will apply professional judgment to those designations in order to establish trends and patterns in student learning, growth, and achievement, before determining the educator’s ISL. The evaluator’s professional judgment may include, but is not limited to, consideration of the educator’s student population and specific learning context.

a.   A rating of high indicates that the educator’s students demonstrated significantly higher than one year's growth relative to the educator’s student learning goal. The evaluator must also rate the educator as “Exceeded” on the progress toward student learning goal if this level of growth is achieved.

b.   A rating of proficient indicates that the educator’s students demonstrated one year's growth relative to the educator’s student learning goal. The evaluator must also rate the educator as either “Significant Progress” or “Met” on the progress toward student learning goal if this level of growth is achieved.

c.    A rating of low indicates that the educator’s students demonstrated significantly lower than one year's student learning growth relative to the educator’s student learning goal. The evaluator must also rate the educator as either “Some Progress” or “Not Met” on the progress toward student learning goal if this level of growth is achieved.

H.  Intersection between the Summative Performance Rating and the ISL

i.   An educator’s Summative Performance Rating is a rating of educator practice (See Article 17 Section 15). The educator’s ISL is a rating of impact on student learning, growth, and achievement and is directly connected to the educator’s rating of progress toward the student learning goal.

ii.   Educators with PTS whose overall Summative Performance Rating is exemplary and whose ISL is proficient or high shall be recognized as determined through future collective bargaining.

iii.   Educators with PTS whose overall Summative Performance Rating is proficient and whose ISL is proficient or high may be recognized as determined through future collective bargaining. Such educators shall be placed on a two-year self-directed growth plan. See Section 18.A.

iv.   Educators with PTS whose overall Summative Performance Rating is exemplary or proficient and whose ISL is low shall be placed on a one-year self-directed growth plan. See Section 18.B. a.   In such cases, the evaluator’s supervisor shall discuss and review the Summative Performance Rating with the evaluator and the supervisor shall confirm or revise the educator’s rating. In cases where the superintendent serves as the evaluator, the superintendent’s decision on the rating shall not be subject to such review (See Section 15.D) provided however, that nothing herein shall preclude the educator from seeking adjustment pursuant to the grievance/arbitration procedures in this agreement.

b.   The educator and the evaluator shall analyze the discrepancy between the Summative Performance Rating and ISL to seek to determine the cause of the discrepancy.

c.    The Educator Plan may include a goal related to examining elements of practice that may be contributing to low impact.

v.   When the educator begins a new evaluation cycle, he/she will use the evidence of performance and the ISL when composing the self-assessment, writing goals and creating a new educator plan.

I.    DDM Implementation Schedule

i.    Training for all members of Unit A and administrators will occur at the beginning of the 2014-15 school year.

 ii.    During the 2014-15 school year, the educator who is beginning the evaluation cycle will follow the guidelines set forth in Section 22.

iii.   During the 2014-15 school year, any educator who is midway through the evaluation cycle (e.g., year two of a two-year directed growth plan) will not follow the guidelines set forth in Section 22. Such an educator will begin to follow these guidelines when his/her cycle begins again during the 2015-16 school year.

23.     Using Student feedback in Educator Evaluation

ESE will provide model contract language, direction and guidance on using student feedback in Educator Evaluation. Upon receiving this model contract language, direction and guidance, the Parties agree to bargain with respect to this matter.

24.     Using Staff feedback in Educator Evaluation

ESE will provide model contract language, direction and guidance on using staff feedback in Administrator Evaluation. Upon receiving this model contract language, direction and guidance, the Parties agree to bargain with respect to this matter.

25.  General Provisions

A.   Only Educators who are licensed as an administrator may serve as primary Evaluators of Educators.

B.    Evaluators shall not make negative comments about the Educator’s performance, or comments of a negative evaluative nature, in the presence of students, parents or other staff, except in the unusual circumstance where the Evaluator concludes that s/he must immediately and directly intervene. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit an administrator’s ability to investigate a complaint, or secure assistance to support an Educator.

C.  The superintendent shall insure that Evaluators have training in supervision and evaluation, including the regulations and standards and indicators of effective teaching practice promulgated by ESE (35.03), and the evaluation Standards and Procedures established in this Agreement.

D.   Should there be a serious disagreement between the Educator and the Evaluator regarding an overall summative performance rating of unsatisfactory, the Educator may meet with the Evaluator’s supervisor to discuss the disagreement. Should the Educator request such a meeting, the Evaluator’s supervisor must meet with the Educator. The Evaluator may attend any such meeting at the discretion of the superintendent.

E.   The Parties agree to establish a joint labor-management evaluation team which shall review the evaluation processes and procedures annually through the first three years of implementation and recommend adjustments to the parties.

F.   Violations of this article are subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures. The arbitrator shall determine whether there was substantial compliance with the totality of the evaluation process. When the evaluation process results in the termination or non-renewal of an Educator, then no financial remedy or reinstatement shall issue if there was substantial compliance.

G. If an Educator’s performance continues to be rated as needs improvement and/or unsatisfactory as a result of multiple forms of evidence, the Evaluator can provide the Educator with written notice of a revised due date of the Educator’s evaluation cycle.

•  No less than two weeks before the due date for the Formative Evaluation report, which due date shall be

established by the Evaluator with written notice provided to the Educator, the Educator shall provide to the Evaluator evidence of family outreach and engagement, fulfillment of professional responsibility and growth, and progress on attaining professional practice and student learning goals (See Appendix G: Educator Collection of Evidence Form).

•    No less than four weeks before the due date for the Summative Evaluation Report, which due date shall

be established by the Evaluator with written notice provided to the Educator, the Educator will provide to the Evaluator evidence of family outreach and engagement, fulfillment of professional responsibility and growth, and progress on attaining professional practice and student learning goals. The educator may also provide to the evaluator additional evidence of the educator’s performance against the four Performance Standards.

•    No less than two weeks before the due date for the Formative Assessment Report, which due date shall be established by the Evaluator with written notice provided to the Educator the Educator shall provide to the Evaluator evidence of family outreach and engagement, fulfillment of professional responsibility and growth, and progress on attaining professional practice and student learning goals (See Appendix G: Educator Collection of Evidence Form). The Educator may provide to the Evaluator additional evidence of the Educator’s performances against the four Performance Standards. Upon the request of either the Evaluator or the Educator, the Evaluator and the Educator will meet either before or after completion of the Formative Assessment Report.

H. At times, Educators are assigned to teach courses outside of their certification area. In such an instance, the Educator will not be evaluated for his/her performance in this course. This shall not apply to any Educator on a waiver.

Teacher Rubric At-A-Glance

APPENDIX A

Guide to Teacher Rubric

Rubrics - defined in the regulations as “scoring tool[s] that describe characteristics of practice or artifacts at different levels of performance” (603 CMR 35.02) - are a critical component of the Massachusetts educator evaluation framework and are required for every educator. Rubrics are designed to help educators and evaluators (1) develop a consistent, shared understanding of what proficient performance looks like in practice, (2) develop a common terminology and structure to organize evidence, and (3) make informed professional judgments about formative and summative performance ratings on each Standard and overall. This appendix contains the ESE Model Teacher Rubric.

Structure of the Teacher Rubric

Standards: Standards are the broad categories of knowledge, skills, and performance of effective practice detailed in the regulations. There are four Standards for teachers: Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment; Teaching All Students; Family and Community Engagement; and Professional Culture.

•     Indicators: Indicators, also detailed in the regulations, describe specific knowledge, skills, and performance for each Standard. For example, there are three Indicators in Standard I of the teacher rubric: Curriculum and Planning; Assessment; and Analysis.

•     Elements: The elements are more specific descriptions of actions and behaviors related to each Indicator. The elements further break down the Indicators into more specific aspects of educator practice and provide an opportunity for evaluators to offer detailed feedback that serves as a roadmap for improvement.

•     Descriptors: Performance descriptors are observable and measurable statements of educator actions and behaviors aligned to each element and serve as the basis for identifying the level of teaching or administrative performance in one of four categories: Unsatisfactory, Needs Improvement, Proficient, or Exemplary.

Use of the Teacher Rubric

This rubric describes teaching practice. It is intended to be used throughout the 5 step evaluation cycle for all teachers, including teachers of whole classrooms, small groups, individual students, or any combination of the above. The rubric is designed to be applicable to general education teachers from pre-K through Advanced Placement, as well as teachers with specialized classes or knowledge, including teachers of English Language Learners, and special education teachers; districts may also choose to use this rubric for educators in other roles such as specialists.

The responsibilities of teachers to whom this rubric will be applied may vary. ESE encourages educators and evaluators to use the rubric strategically by discussing and agreeing upon certain Indicators and Elements that should be high priorities according to that educator’s role and responsibilities as well as his/her professional practice and student learning needs. There are a variety of ways to emphasize these components throughout the evaluation cycle. For example, high priority Indicators and/or elements can be analyzed in greater depth during self-assessment, targeted during goal setting, a focus for more comprehensive evidence collection, or all of the above. However, the expectation is that by the end of the evaluation cycle, educators and evaluators have gathered and shared a reasonable amount of evidence on every Indicator to support a rating for each Standard.

Standard I:

Standard II:

Standard III:

Standard IV:

Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment

Teaching All Students

Family and Community Engagement

Professional Culture

A. Curriculum and Planning Indicator

A. Instruction Indicator

A. Engagement Indicator

A. Reflection Indicator

1. Subject Matter Knowledge

1. Quality of Effort and Work

1. Parent/Family Engagement

1. Reflective Practice

2. Child and Adolescent Development

2. Student Engagement

 

2. Goal Setting

3. Rigorous Standards-Based Unit Design

3. Meeting Diverse Needs

 

 

4. Well-Structured Lessons

 

 

 

B. Assessment Indicator

B. Learning Environment Indicator

B. Collaboration Indicator

B. Professional Growth Indicator

1. Variety of Assessment Methods

1. Safe Learning Environment

1. Learning Expectations

1. Professional Learning and Growth

2. Adjustments to Practice

2. Collaborative Learning Environment

2. Curriculum Support

 

 

3. Student Motivation

 

 

C. Analysis Indicator

C. Cultural Proficiency Indicator

C. Communication Indicator

C. Collaboration Indicator

1. Analysis and Conclusions

1. Respects Differences

1. Two-Way Communication

1. Professional Collaboration

2. Sharing Conclusions With Colleagues

2. Maintains Respectful Environment

2. Culturally Proficient Communication

 

3. Sharing Conclusions With Students

 

 

 

 

D. Expectations Indicator

 

D. Decision-Making Indicator

 

1. Clear Expectations

 

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

How to reference parts of the rubric:

Indicator terminology: under the “Teaching All StudentsStandard (II), the ”Instruction Indicator(A) can be referred to as Indicator II-A

Element terminology: under the Instruction Indicator (A), the Student Engagement Element (2) can be referred to as Element II-A-2

Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice:

Teacher Rubric / Appendix A

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

I-A. Elements

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

I-A-1. Subject Matter Knowledge

Demonstrates limited knowledge of the subject matter and/or its pedagogy; relies heavily on textbooks or resources for development of the factual content. Rarely engages students in learning experiences focused on complex knowledge or skills in the subject.

Demonstrates factual knowledge of subject matter and the pedagogy it requires by sometimes engaging students in learning experiences around complex knowledge and skills in the subject.

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.

Demonstrates expertise in subject matter and the pedagogy it requires by engaging all students in learning experiences that enable them to synthesize complex knowledge and skills in the subject. Is able to model this element.

I-A-4. Well-Structured Lessons

Develops lessons with inappropriate student engagement strategies, pacing, sequence, activities, materials, resources, and/or grouping for the intended outcome or for the students in the class.

Develops lessons with only some elements of appropriate student engagement strategies, pacing, sequence, activities, materials, resources, and grouping.

Develops well-structured lessons with challenging, measurable objectives and appropriate student engagement strategies, pacing, sequence, activities, materials, resources, technologies, and grouping.

Develops well-structured and highly engaging lessons with challenging, measurable objectives and appropriate student engagement strategies, pacing, sequence, activities, materials, resources, technologies, and grouping to attend to every student’s needs. Is able to model this element.

NOTE: At the Exemplary level, an educator’s level of expertise is such that he or she is able to model this element through training, teaching, coaching, assisting, and/or demonstrating. In this rubric, this level of expertise is denoted by “Is able to model.”

Indicator I-B.    Assessment: Uses a variety of informal and formal methods of assessments to measure student learning, growth, and understanding to develop differentiated and enhanced learning experiences and improve future instruction.

I-B. Elements

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

I-B-2. Adjustment to Practice

Makes few adjustments to practice based on formal and informal assessments.

May organize and analyze some assessment results but only occasionally adjusts practice or modifies future instruction based on the findings.

Organizes and analyzes results from a variety of assessments to determine progress toward intended outcomes and uses these findings to adjust practice and identify and/or implement appropriate differentiated interventions and enhancements for students.

Organizes and analyzes results from a comprehensive system of assessments to determine progress toward intended outcomes and frequently uses these findings to adjust practice and identify and/or implement appropriate differentiated interventions and enhancements for individuals and groups of students and appropriate modifications of lessons and units. Is able to model this element.

NOTE: At the Exemplary level, an educator’s level of expertise is such that he or she is able to model this element through training, teaching, coaching, assisting, and/or demonstrating. In this rubric, this level of expertise is denoted by “Is able to model.”

Standard II: Teaching All Students. The teacher promotes the learning and growth of all students through instructional practices that establish high expectations, create a safe and effective classroom environment, and demonstrate cultural proficiency.

Indicator II-A.   Instruction: Uses instructional practices that reflect high expectations regarding content and quality of effort and work; engage all students; and are personalized to accommodate diverse learning styles, needs, interests, and levels of readiness.

II-A. Elements

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

II-A-1. Quality of Effort and Work

Establishes no or low expectations around quality of work and effort and/or offers few supports for students to produce quality work or effort.

May states high expectations for quality and effort, but provides few exemplars and rubrics, limited guided practice, and/or few other supports to help students know what is expected of them; may establish inappropriately low expectations for quality and effort.

Consistently defines high expectations for the quality of student work and the perseverance and effort required to produce it; often provides exemplars, rubrics, and guided practice.

Consistently defines high expectations for quality work and effort and effectively supports students to set high expectations for each other to persevere and produce high-quality work. Is able to model this element.

NOTE: At the Exemplary level, an educator’s level of expertise is such that he or she is able to model this element through training, teaching, coaching, assisting, and/or demonstrating. In this rubric, this level of expertise is denoted by “Is able to model.”

Standard III: Family and Community Engagement. The teacher promotes the learning and growth of all students through effective partnerships with families, caregivers, community members, and organizations.

Indicator III-B.   Collaboration: Collaborates with families to create and implement strategies for supporting student learning and development both at home and at school.

III-B. Elements

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

III-B-2. Curriculum Support

Rarely, if ever, communicates with parents on ways to support children at home or at school.

Sends home occasional suggestions on how parents can support children at home or at school.

Regularly updates parents on curriculum throughout the year and suggests strategies for supporting learning at school and home, including appropriate adaptation for students with disabilities or limited English proficiency.

Successfully prompts most families to use one or more of the strategies suggested for supporting learning at school and home and seeks out evidence of their impact. Is able to model this element.

Standard IV: Professional Culture. The teacher promotes the learning and growth of all students through ethical, culturally proficient, skilled, and collaborative practice.

Indicator IV-C.   Collaboration: Collaborates effectively with colleagues on a wide range of tasks.

IV-C. Elements

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

IV-C-1. Professional Collaboration

Rarely and/or ineffectively collaborates with colleagues; conversations often lack focus on improving student learning.

Does not consistently collaborate with colleagues in ways that support productive team effort.

Consistently and effectively collaborates with colleagues in such work as developing standards-based units, examining student work, analyzing student performance, and planning appropriate intervention.

Supports colleagues to collaborate in areas such as developing standards-based units, examining student work, analyzing student performance, and planning appropriate intervention. Is able to model this element.

Indicator IV-F.    Professional Responsibilities: Is ethical and reliable, and meets routine responsibilities consistently.

IV-F. Elements

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

IV-F-2. Reliability & Responsibility

Frequently misses or is late to assignments, makes errors in records, and/or misses paperwork deadlines; frequently late or absent.

Occasionally misses or is late to assignments, completes work late, and/or makes errors in records.

Consistently fulfills professional responsibilities; is consistently punctual and reliable with paperwork, duties, and assignments; and is rarely late or absent from school.

Consistently fulfills all professional responsibilities to high standards. Is able to model this element.

NOTE: At the Exemplary level, an educator’s level of expertise is such that he or she is able to model this element through training, teaching, coaching, assisting, and/or demonstrating. In this rubric, this level of expertise is denoted by “Is able to model.”

APPENDIX B

Self-Assessment Form

Educator—Name/Title:_________________________________________________________________

Primary Evaluator—Name/Title: _______________________________________________________

Supervising Evaluator, if any—Name/Title/Role in evaluation: __________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

School(s): ____________________________________________________________________________

Part 1: Analysis of Student Learning, Growth, and Achievement

Briefly summarize areas of strength and high-priority concerns for students under your responsibility for the upcoming school year. Cite evidence such as results from available assessments. This form should be individually submitted by educator, but Part 1 can also be used by individuals and/or teams who jointly review and analyze student data.

603 CMR 35.06 (2)(a)1

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

Team, if applicable: ___________________________________________________________________

List Team Members below:

_______________________________________                              ________________________________

_______________________________________                              ________________________________

_______________________________________                              ________________________________

Educator—Name/Title: __________________________________________________________________

Part 2: Assessment of Practice Against Performance Standards Citing your district’s performance rubric, briefly summarize areas of strength and high-priority areas for growth. Areas may target specific Standards, Indicators, or Elements, or span multiple Indicators or Elements within or across Standards. The form should be individually submitted by educator, but Part 2 can also be used by teams in preparation for proposing team goals.

603 CMR 35.06 (2)(a)2

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

Team, if applicable: ___________________________________________________________________

List Team Members below:

_______________________________________                              ________________________________

_______________________________________                              ________________________________

_______________________________________                              ________________________________

Educator—Name/Title: __________________________________________________________________

Signature of Educator  _______________________________________       Date_____________________

Signature of Educator  _______________________________________       Date_____________________

* The evaluator’s signature indicates that he or she has received a copy of the self-assessment form and the goal setting form with proposed goals. It does not denote approval of the goals.

APPENDIX C

Goal Setting & Educator Plan Form

Educator—Name/Title: ________________________________________________________________

Primary Evaluator—Name/Title: _________________________________________________________

Supervising Evaluator, if any—Name/Title/Role in evaluation:________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

School(s): ________________________________________________________________

Educator Plan:         []  Self-Directed Growth Plan             [] Directed Growth Plan

[]  Developing Educator Plan            []  Improvement Plan*

Plan Duration:         []  2-Year               []  One-Year                 []  Less than a year

Start Date: _____________________________                        End Date:____________________________

A minimum of one student learning goal and one professional practice goal are required. Team goals must be considered per 603 CMR 35.06(3)(b).

Student Learning SMART Goal(s)

Check whether goal is individual or team; write team name if applicable.

[]   Individual

[]   Team: _____________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

*Additional detail may be attached if needed

SMART: S=Specific and Strategic; M=Measurable; A=Action Oriented;

R=Rigorous, Realistic, and Results-Focused; T=Timed and Tracked

Student Learning Goal(s): Planned Activities

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Please list actions the educator will take to attain the student learning goal(s). Activities may apply to individual and/or team.

Student Learning Goal(s): Evidence to be collected

Please list the evidence that the educator will gather during this evaluation period to demonstrate attainment of the Student Learning Goal(s). The educator must include student growth percentile (SGP) data from statewide testing if available.

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

Professional Practice SMART Goal(s)

Check whether goal is individual or team; write team name if applicable.

[  ]    Individual

[  ]    Team:______________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Professional Practice SMART Goal(s): Planned Activities

Describe actions the educator will take to attain the student learning goal(s). Activities may apply to individual and/or team. Attach additional pages as needed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Professional Practice SMART Goal(s): Evidence to be collected

Please list the evidence that the educator will gather during this evaluation period to demonstrate attainment of the Professional Practice SMART Goal(s).

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX E

Evaluator Record of Evidence Form

Educator—Name/Title: _________________________________________________________

Primary Evaluator—Name/Title: _________________________________________________________

Supervising Evaluator, if any—Name/Title/Role in evaluation: __________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

School(s): ______________________________________________________________________

Academic Year: _______________________            Educator Plan and Duration:_____________________

Standards and Indicators for Effective Teaching Practice: Rubric Outline

as per 603 CMR 35.03

The evaluator should track collection to ensure that sufficient evidence has been gathered.

I. Curriculum, Planning, & Assessment

II. Teaching All Students

III. Family & Community Engagement

IV. Professional Culture

[  ]    I-A. Curriculum and Planning

[  ]    II-A. Instruction

[  ]    III-B. Collaboration

[  ]    IV-C. Collaboration

[  ]    I-B. Assessment

 

 

[  ]    IV-F. Professional Responsibilities

* The Rubric Outline is intended to be used for citing Standards and Indicators. Evaluators should review the full rubric for analysis of evidence and determination of ratings

Educator: _______________________________              Evaluator: ______________________________

Date (Record date of collection, duration if applicable)

Source of Evidence* (e.g., parent conference, observation)

Standard(s)/ Indicator(s) Note Standard(s) and Indicator(s) to which evidence is tied

Analysis of Evidence Record notes "based on observations and artifacts of professional practice, including unannounced observations of practice of any duration” or other forms of evidence to support determining ratings on Standards as per 603 CMR 35.07

Feedback Provided Briefly record feedback given to educator (e.g., strengths recognized, suggestions for improvement). If source of evidence is needs improvement or is unsatisfactory, it must be specifically noted as such.

Educator Response Brief response from the educator (optional)

EX: 11/8/11

EX: unit plans, benchmark data

EX: I-B

EX: unit plans were appropriately modified after analysis of benchmark data to better reflect student performance at mid­point of semester

EX: recognized strong adjustment to practice, suggested teacher collaborate with team on backward curriculum mapping

 

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

 __ __ __ __

*note if classroom observations are announced or unannounced

APPENDIX F

ANNOUNCED OBSERVATION FORM

TEACHER: ______________________________________            DATE__________________________

SCHOOL: _____________________________           SUBJECT: _____________________________

APPROXIMATE SIZE OF CLASS OBSERVED: _________    LENGTH OF OBSERVATION:________

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES:___________________________________________________________

NARRATIVE: _______________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

STANDARDS & RATINGS:

Standard I.A.

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

N/A

Standard I.B.

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

N/A

Standard II.A.

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

N/A

Standard III.B.

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

N/A

Standard IV.C.

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

N/A

Standard IV.F.

Unsatisfactory

Needs Improvement

Proficient

Exemplary

N/A

Teacher’s Signature _______________________________________          Date:___________________

Evaluator’s Signature: _________________________________          Date:_______________________

Pre-Conference Date:  ______________               Post Conference Date: _______________________

Teacher’s Comments:____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX G

Educator Collection of Evidence Form

Educator—Name/Title: ____________________________________________________________

Primary Evaluator—Name/Title: ____________________________________________________

Supervising Evaluator, if any—Name/Title/Role in evaluation:____________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

School(s): __________________________________________________________________________

Evidence pertains to (check all that apply)1:

[]  Fulfillment of professional responsibilities and growth

[]  Evidence of outreach to and ongoing engagement with families

[]  Progress toward attaining student learning goal(s)

[]  Progress toward attaining professional practice goal(s)

[]  Other:___________________________________________________________________________

Summary of Evidence

Summarize the evidence compiled to be presented to evaluator with a brief analysis.

Attach additional pages as needed.

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Educator   _______________________________________  Date______________________

Signature of Evaluator   _______________________________________  Date______________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

1 Per 603 CMR 35.07(1)(c)1, “Evidence compiled and presented by the educator include[s]: 1. Evidence of fulfillment of professional responsibilities and growth, such as: self-assessments; peer collaboration; professional development linked to goals and or educator plans; contributions to the school community and professional culture; 2. Evidence of active outreach to and ongoing engagement with families.” However, educator collection of evidence is not limited to these areas.

____________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX H

Mid-Cycle Formative Assessment Report Form

(For non PTS teachers or PTS teachers who received “Needs Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory” ratings)

Educator—Name/Title:__________________________________________________________________

Primary Evaluator—Name/Title:__________________________________________________________

Supervising Evaluator, if any—Name/Title/Role in evaluation:____________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

School(s): _____________________________________________________________________________

Assessing2:

[]    Progress toward attaining goals                   [] Performance on Standards            []  Both

Progress Toward Student Learning Goal(s)

Describe current level of progress and feedback for improvement. Attach additional pages as needed.

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Progress Toward Professional Practice Goal(s)

Describe current level of progress. Attach additional pages as needed.

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

2 As per 603 CMR 35.02 and 603 CMR 35.06(5), formative assessment shall mean the process used to assess progress towards attaining goals set forth in educator plans, performance on performance standards, or both.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Mid-Cycle Formative Assessment Report Form

Educator—Name/Title:______________________________________________________________

Performance on Each Standard

Describe performance and feedback for improvement. Attach additional pages as needed.

I: Curriculum, Planning, & Assessment

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

II: Teaching All Students

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

III: Family & Community Engagement

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

IV: Professional Culture

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX J

Educator Response Form

Educator—Name/Title: ___________________________________________________________

Primary Evaluator—Name/Title: ___________________________________________________________

Supervising Evaluator, if any—Name/Title/Role in evaluation:___________________________________

School(s): ____________________________________________________________________________

Response to: (check all that apply)

[]  Educator Plan, including goals and activities

[]  Announced observation

[]  Formative Assessment or Evaluation Report

[]  Summative Evaluation Report

[]  Other:_____________________________________________________________________

Educator Response

Attach additional pages as needed

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Educator ________________________________             Date_________________________

Signature of Evaluator  _______________________________             Date_________________________

Attachment(s) included

APPENDIX K

(revised5-13-14)

Formative Evaluation Report Form

(For two year self-directed plans only)

* For educators on two-year Self-Directed Growth Plans at the end of Year One of the cycle

Educator—Name/Title: __________________________________________________________________

Primary Evaluator—Name/Title: _________________________________________________________

Supervising Evaluator, if any—Name/Title/Role in evaluation:___________________________________

School(s):____________________________________________________________________________

Assessing3:

[]  Progress toward attaining goals              []   Performance on Standards              []    Both

Impact on Student Learning Rating:          []  Preliminary

Progress Toward Student Learning Goal(s)

The educator is rated on progress toward student learning goal and the impact on student learning (ISL) as low, proficient or high.

[] Did not meet         [] Some progress            [] Significant Progress      [] Met             [] Exceeded

(Low)                       (Low)                                (Proficient)                      (Proficient)  (High)

Rationale, evidence, strengths, and feedback for improvement:

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Progress Toward Professional Practice Goal(s)

Attach additional pages as needed.

[] Did not meet         [] Some progress            [] Significant Progress      [] Met             [] Exceeded

Rationale, evidence, strengths, and feedback for improvement:

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

3 As per 603 CMR 35.02 and 603 CMR 35.06(5), formative evaluation shall mean the process used to assess progress towards attaining goals set forth in educator plans, performance on performance standards, or both.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Formative Evaluation Report Form

Educator—Name/Title: _____________________________________________________________

[]  Evaluator is assigning same ratings as prior Summative Evaluation; no comments needed

[]   Evaluator is assigning ratings that differ from prior Summative Evaluation; comments are required

Rating on Each Standard

I: Curriculum, Planning, & Assessment

[]  Unsatisfactory    [] Needs Improvement     [] Proficient    [] Exemplary

Rationale, evidence, strengths, and feedback for improvement:

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

II: Teaching All Students

[]  Unsatisfactory    [] Needs Improvement     [] Proficient    [] Exemplary

Rationale, evidence, strengths, and feedback for improvement:

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

III: Family/Community Engagement

[]  Unsatisfactory    [] Needs Improvement     [] Proficient    [] Exemplary

Rationale, evidence, strengths, and feedback for improvement:

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

IV: Professional Culture

[]  Unsatisfactory    [] Needs Improvement     [] Proficient    [] Exemplary

Rationale, evidence, strengths, and feedback for improvement:

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Overall Performance Rating

[]  Unsatisfactory    [] Needs Improvement     [] Proficient    [] Exemplary

Rationale, evidence, strengths, and feedback for improvement:

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Plan Moving Forward

[]  Self-Directed          []  Directed              [] Improvement              []  Developing Educator

Growth Plan              Growth Plan              Plan                                Plan

RECOMMENDATION:                                                            YES               NO

Recommended for first annual reappointment __________________________________

Recommended for second annual reappointment ________________________________

Recommended for Professional Teacher Status _________________________________

Recommended for Increment________________________________________________

The educator shall have the opportunity to respond in writing to the formative evaluation as per 603 CMR 35.06(5)(c) on the Educator Response Form.

Signature of Primary Evaluator   __________________________     Date Completed: _________________

Signature of Supervising Evaluator  _____________________     Date Completed: _________________

Signature of Educator*  __________________________________     Date Received:_________________

Signature of __________________________________     Date Received:_________________

* Signature of the educator indicates acknowledgement of this report; it does not necessarily denote agreement with the contents of the report. Educators have the opportunity to respond to this report in writing and may use the Educator Report Form

APPENDIX L

(revised 5-6-14]

Summative Evaluation Report Form

Educator—Name/Title: ___________________________________________________________

Primary Evaluator—Name/Title: ___________________________________________________________

Supervising Evaluator, if any—Name/Title/Role in evaluation: ___________________________________

School(s): ______________________________________________________________________

Current Plan:                    []  Self-Directed Growth Plan      []  Directed Growth Plan

[]  Developing Educator Plan      []   Improvement Plan

Impact on Student Learning Rating:     []   Preliminary         []  Final

Progress Toward Student Learning Goal(s)

The educator is rated on progress toward student learning goal and the impact on student learning (ISL) as low, proficient or high.

[] Did not meet        [] Some progress            [] Significant Progress       []  Met          [] Exceeded (High)

(Low)                    (Low)                          (Proficient)                    (Proficient)

Two or three bulleted commendations or recommendations (Optional for teachers rated “Some Progress,” “Significant Progress,” “Met” or “Exceeded.” A more detailed narrative description is required for educators rated as “Did Not Meet.”)

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Progress Toward Professional Practice Goal(s)

Attach additional pages as needed.

[]  Did not meet       []  Some progress         []  Significant Progress      []  Met            []  Exceeded

Two or three bulleted commendations or recommendations (Optional for teachers rated “Some Progress,” “Significant Progress,” “Met” or “Exceeded.” A more detailed narrative description is required for educators rated as “Did Not Meet.”)

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Summative Evaluation Report Form

Educator—Name/Title: _________________________________________________

Rating on Each Standard

I: Curriculum, Planning & Assessment

[]  Unsatisfactory       []   Needs Improvement       []   Proficient    []   Exemplary

Two or three bulleted commendations or recommendations (Optional for teachers rated “Some Progress,” “Significant Progress,” “Met” or “Exceeded.” A more detailed narrative description is required for educators rated as “Did Not Meet.”)

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

II: Teaching All Students

[]  Unsatisfactory       []   Needs Improvement       []   Proficient    []   Exemplary

Two or three bulleted commendations or recommendations (Optional for teacherss rated “Some Progress,” “Significant Progress,” “Met” or “Exceeded.” A more detailed narrative description is required for educators rated as “Did Not Meet.”)

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

III: Family/Community Engagement

[]  Unsatisfactory       []   Needs Improvement       []   Proficient    []   Exemplary

Two or three bulleted commendations or recommendations (Optional for teacherss rated “Some Progress,” “Significant Progress,” “Met” or “Exceeded.” A more detailed narrative description is required for educators rated as “Did Not Meet.”)

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

IV: Professional Culture

[]  Unsatisfactory       []   Needs Improvement       []   Proficient    []   Exemplary

Two or three bulleted commendations or recommendations (Optional for teachers rated “Some Progress,”

“Significant Progress,” “Met” or “Exceeded.” A more detailed narrative description is required for educators rated as “Did Not Meet.”)

Overall Performance Rating

[]  Unsatisfactory       []   Needs Improvement       []   Proficient    []   Exemplary

Two or three bulleted commendations or recommendations (Optional for teachers rated “Some Progress,” “Significant Progress,” “Met” or “Exceeded.” A more detailed narrative description is required for educators rated as “Did Not Meet.”)

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Plan Moving Forward

[]   Self-Directed          []  Directed             []  Improvement             []  Developing Educator

Growth Plan                     Growth Plan             Plan                               Plan

The educator shall have the opportunity to respond in writing to the summative evaluation as per 603 CMR 35.06(5)(c) on the Educator Response Form.

Signature of Evaluator    _____________________________      Date Completed: _______________

Signature of Educator*  ____________________________        Date Received: _______________

* Signature of the Administrator indicates acknowledgement of this report; it does not necessarily denote agreement with the contents of the report. Educators have the opportunity to respond to this report in writing and may use the Educator Report Form