Thoughts on the Commissioner’s Evaluation

Evaluating the Commissioner is an important dimension in providing citizen/public oversight of the Department. In my comments at the Board meeting Tuesday, June 28, I expressed my primary concerns about Reading, Social Emotional Learning (SEL), and Advisory Councils. However, due to time constraints, I wasn't able to share all comments, commendations, recommendations.

As the Board has heard in two Special Meetings (in May and June), all educators are evaluated with a rubric specific to their educational role. Rubrics are comprised of 4 standards (customized for each role) and many indicators and all educators are given a performance rating using one of four performance levels: Unsatisfactory; Needs Improvement; Proficient; Exemplary.

By contrast, the Commissioner is evaluated using a set of criteria determined by the Board's Evaluation Committee, with input from Board members. I attended two meetings of the Committee (October 19 and May 24) and was pleased that they accepted some of the changes I recommended over the previous year's evaluation.*

This year's criteria are based on the Board’s mission and five core strategies in the Department’s Strategic Plan. I also considered a variety of evidence in completing my evaluation.**

The Commissioner's performance rating also differs from the one used in MA's Educator Evaluation System. Unlike the Ed Evals' four performance levels, the Commissioner's performance is rated with a 5-point numeric rating: 1 (Unsatisfactory); 2 (Needs Improvement); 3 (Proficient); 4 (Very Good); 5 (Outstanding). Is a numeric rating the most useful for a high-performance evaluation? I think not. There's wisdom in the performance levels used in MA's Ed Eval system. Education is progressive, in that it's continuously improving; it's more instructive to know what to focus on than to consider a number, or worse, to consider some lower ranking "as a slap in the face" or a "terrible thing".

I shared my evaluation in a phone call with Penny Noyce, Chair of the Evaluation Committee, on Monday, April 25. The Board received a copy of the Commissioner's Self-Evaluation on May 20, followed by an updated self-eval on June 3. I was able to share my evaluation with Commissioner Chester in a phone call on Thursday, June 16.

Of particular concern:

Category I: Facilitate Student Achievement and Growth (30%) My biggest concerns lie in the final two bullets of Category I:

• “to develop a plan to address gaps in reading achievement”, which is part of the Department’s Strategic Plan; and
• "to develop and implement a plan to strengthen support for students’ social/emotional health”, also a Board priority

WRT Reading: The Board received no information whatever about a plan in the works to address gaps in reading achievement. We did see announcements about Massachusetts NAEP results, touting the Commonwealth's #1 ranking in reading, which is commendable, but moving forward, we should be less concerned about our ranking among other states and focus on our children's needs in MA - - 50% are not proficient in reading or math. That there is no plan for improving reading achievement is Unsatisfactory: rated 1.

WRT SEL: Some work is already underway, and the Board dedicated one of our Special Meetings to the topic, but we saw nothing about a plan to strengthen support for SEL.

SEL Needs Improvement: rated 2.5.
Commendations include: Reporting on the LEAP initiative. Recommendations: 1). That we hear about L4s at least once a year - there's a criterion that the Commissioner report on Level 4 and 5 districts and schools. The only L4 district/schools we heard about were the Springfield middle schools, via the Springfield Empowerment Zone at the regular meeting last month. 2). When the Board received Mitchell's self-evaluation we read for the first time that a reading pilot had been launched in BPS for Kindergarten and grades 1 and 2. Further recommend that the Board be informed when new initiatives are launched.
Category I: 3.0 overall.

Category II: Management & Operations (25%) Concern here has to do with Advisory Councils. A majority of ACs were asked not to schedule meetings this year, which didn't sit well with many of them. Councils are comprised of numerous volunteers, who submit applications for appointment. They, collectively, put in many hundreds of hours on behalf of public education in the Commonwealth, advising both the Commissioner and the Board in this regard. Recommendation that the Commissioner use the Board and Advisory Council leaders to find solutions to this unfunded mandate together. Advisory Councils Needs Improvement: 2.5. Commendations include: 1). Organizational review - DESE was adjusting to diminished resources and staffing due to state budget priorities (including early retirement program) and the end of federal RTTT funds. I thought this was a wise use of funds. 2). And while the Department has yet to communicate to the Board about implementing a new Strategic Plan based on the organizational review, my Recommendation is to include the Board in Strategic Planning.

Category II: 3.1 overall.

Of little concern:

Category III: External Relations and Communication (25%) Commendations include: The ongoing role of the Department on the Foundation Budget Review Commission, which lead to its final report in October (2015). Recommendations include: 1). The Commissioner/Department should've engaged with the Board to convene several public hearings on ESSA, in addition to the Commissioner's privately scheduled meetings with stakeholder groups. 2). The Commissioner meets privately with various external groups and education associations and he frequently provides very brief updates to us. Much of this Category pertains to the external groups; I understand that the Committee looked more closely at this and I responded where the Board had had direct information about external communications.
Category III: 4.0 overall.

Category IV: Board Support and Effective Interactions (20%) Commendations include: 1). Timely receipt of materials is improved over last year. Thank you. 2). Also, good professional working relationships with Senior Leadership and Office Staff. Recommendations include: That the Chair update the Board following weekly meetings with the Commissioner; the Chair represents all of the Board. No detail need be provided - the Chair's update could be as simple as a bulleted list of topics.
Category IV: 4.3 overall.
Once all Category performance ratings were weighted with percentages as designated, my overall evaluation results in a 3.6 performance rating. This acknowledges the Commissioner's adept and practiced expertise. It also acknowledges that the work is continuously improving. It's not as high as the performance rating of 4.7 found in the Committee's Performance Review.

The MOTION offered by the Committee was included in our Board Book along with the Committee's final report:

that the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education approves the Commissioner's FY2016 performance rating of "outstanding" as recommended by the Board's Committee. The Board further approves a salary increase for the Commissioner of 2%, effective July 1, 2016.

Given my expressed concerns, I couldn't support an "Outstanding" rating. We benefit from the Commissioner's eight years of stable educational leadership and I wanted to support the recommendation of the Committee to increase his salary by 2%.

At the meeting I offered a MOTION that effectively split the original MOTION into two questions/votes; it wasn't seconded.

The Committee's MOTION prevailed on a vote of 9-0-1: Penny was absent; I voted "Present".

- - -
Final Report that majority of the Board endorsed as presented, "Commissioner's Performance Review for FY2016" is HERE.

Margaret Raymond Driscoll, Chair of the Melrose School Committee, was present at the Board's regular Tuesday meeting and blogged about it HERE.

* My recommended changes from 2014-2015 Performance Criteria for consideration for the 2015-2016 Performance Criteria is HERE, with tracked changes (everything in red and strike throughs).

The final Performance Evaluation Criteria used by the Evaluation Committee is HERE.

A MS Administrator (an EdEval panel member last month) noted, "the culture of 'Needs Improvement' as a terrible thing is very strong” #MAedu

— Mary Ann Stewart (@MAStewartMA) June 27, 2016

** Evidence considered in my evaluation: 2015 Strategic Plan; Annual Reports of Advisory Councils; Autism Endorsement; Board Committees on Charter Schools, Budget, Assessment 2.0, Commissioner's Performance Evaluation; Board Discussions on ESSA; Board's website; Briefings and Commissioner Comments at Board Meetings; Candidate Assessment of Performance (CAP); Commissioner's Self-Evaluation; Commissioner's Weekly Update sent to subscribers; Communications to US/ED Regarding the "two test" option and their decision to subsequently designate the Department as "high risk"; Communication from Commissioner's Office Staff, Senior Leadership, General Counsel; Content Standards Review of ELA, Maths, History, and Social Studies; Definition of College and Career; Department's Online Accountability Survey; Department's website; Discussion and backup materials in advance of the MCAS/PARCC Decision; Email; EOE website; First of 3-year Turnaround Plan in Holyoke; Foundation Budget Review Commission's Final Report; Graduation Rates; LEAP initiative; May Presentation of the Springfield Empowerment Zone; MGL, Ch.15, sec.1G (Advisory Councils); MGL, Ch.69, sec.1K (Receivership); Monthly Phone Calls with the Commissioner; NAEP; National reporting in print and digital media on education in Massachusetts (e.g., Center on American Progress, Education Week, etc.); Peck School, Eagleton School, and Discipline Reporting at two UP Academy Schools; Press Releases; Quarterly Reports on Level 5 Schools; Recommendations from the Parthenon Group; Recommendations of the Local Stakeholder Group, Southbridge; Reference to Meeting with MassPartners; Reference to Meetings with Twenty-four members of the Urban Superintendents Network; References to Association and other conferences; References to Traditional School District and Charter School Leaders Working Group (new); Reports on Student Discipline Data; Scheduled Meetings of Board's Advisory Councils; Schedule of Meetings with Stateholders Regarding Options for Accountability Under ESSA; Science, Technology/Engineering Standards; Second 3-year Turnaround Plan in Lawrence; Southbridge District Review Report; Special and Regular Board Meetings, especially in September, October, and November; Standards for Digital Literacy and Computer Science; State Equity Plan to US/ED; Updates on L5 Districts; US/ED Special Education Letter of Determination; Weekly Message from the Commissioner to Board; Working Group on Assessment 2.0; Working Group on Civics Engagement; Years of strong assessment (MCAS).

Commissioner's Annual Performance Evaluation Criteria

In the absence of a rubric, criteria for the commissioner's annual performance evaluation was determined last fall by the Commissioner's Performance Evaluation Committee (Penny Noyce, Committee Chair; James Morton, Board Vice Chair; and Paul Sagan, Board Chair); all Board members were invited to provide input. Criteria were drawn from the Board's Mission Statement and goals in the Department's Strategic Plan. The Board is scheduled to conduct its public evaluation of Commissioner Chester at the Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 28. As of this writing, the evaluation is agenda #5 of 11 items for Discussion and/or Vote.

Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education

2015-2016 Performance Criteria

For

Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education

Background

The mission of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education is to strengthen the Commonwealth’s public education system so that every student is prepared to succeed in postsecondary education, compete in the global economy, and understand the rights and responsibilities of American citizens, and in so doing, to close all proficiency gaps. The Commissioner is the secretary to the Board, its chief executive officer, and the chief state school officer for elementary and secondary education (Mass. General Laws chapter 15, section 1F).

In support of the Board’s mission and the goal of preparing all students for success after high school, the Commissioner and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) have adopted five core strategies (listed on page 1 of the Strategic Plan):

• Strengthen standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment
• Promote educator development
• Turn around the lowest-performing districts and schools
• Use technology and data to support teaching and learning
• Support students’ social/emotional health

The following performance criteria focus on the Commissioner’s roles, accountabilities, and goals and are organized in four categories:

1. Promoting Student Achievement and Growth
2. Management and Operations
3. External Relations and Communication
4. Board Support

The criteria promote measurable outcomes that are realistic and attainable. The Board is recommending setting these function areas into priorities that will set the Commissioner’s work plan and distribution of his time and efforts.

Performance Criteria

I. Facilitate Student Achievement and Growth (30%)

Make substantial progress on the five core strategies listed above to facilitate student growth and achievement, including:

• Develop, implement, monitor, and report on clear turnaround strategies for Level 4 and 5 districts and schools 
• Lead the effective rollout and implementation of major initiatives around curriculum and assessment, including the next generation of the statewide student assessment program
• Promote educator development through continued implementation of RETELL, the educator evaluation system, and other initiatives
• Ensure effective engagement of district leaders by promoting, motivating, measuring, and communicating progress of efforts to close proficiency gaps and raise student performance in underperforming districts
• Develop a plan to address gaps in reading achievement
• Develop and implement a plan to strengthen support for students’ social/emotional health

II. Management and Operations (25%)

• Lead the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) by setting the vision, approving the strategies, and establishing a culture that promotes the Board’s mission and makes substantial progress on the five core strategies listed above
• Manage within the parameters of DESE’s budget to achieve goals, including:
• Report on and implement a strategic plan for DESE based on recommendations from the Fall 2015 organizational review
• Ensure that the DESE is structured, staffed and aligned across all centers to meet its annual operational targets and stated goals, within the limitations of DESE’s budget and state hiring parameters
• Respond appropriately to changes in federal and state requirements
• Increase diversity within the DESE staff, and within the advisory groups

III. External Relations and Communication (25%)

• Manage relationships and communications to maximize alignment of external stakeholders (e.g., Legislature, Governor’s Office/EOE, MTA, AFT-MA, MASS, MASC, principals’ associations, business groups, foundations) with the Board’s overall priorities and goals 
• Engage and responsively communicate with the field and citizens regarding major Board and Department initiatives
• Effectively lead the discussion and communications regarding Massachusetts educational policies and initiatives
• Represent Massachusetts on the wider educational scene through participation, presentations, and leadership, enhancing the Commonwealth’s position as a national leader in K-12 education and positioning Massachusetts to benefit from best practices nationally and internationally

IV. Board Support/Effective Interactions (20%)

• Effectively interact with members of the Board
• Engage Board members in setting the strategic vision for DESE and discussing DESE priorities and local/national policy issues relevant to Massachusetts
• Keep the Board updated on subjects necessary for the Board to fulfill its role, including timely transmission of materials for meetings
• Receive feedback from Board members during annual performance review process

Rating Structure

•    Outstanding = 5
•    Very Good = 4
•    Proficient = 3
•    Needs Improvement = 2
•    Unsatisfactory = 1

Using a Standards-Centered Framework to Implement ESSA

The following are some take-aways from a recent NASBE webinar I participated in - led by Robert Hull, Director of NASBE's Center for College, Career, and Civic Readiness.

State Boards of Education (SBEs) have been reviewing and revising learning standards ever since the publication of "A Nation at Risk" in 1983. It's not enough to adopt standards; SBEs must create a standards-based system in which all policies are aligned with the learning standards.

Learning standards put the student in the center and standards become the "hub of all other components in the system. NASBE identifies six broad areas of policy around the learning standards:

1. Expectations
2. Curriculum
3. Materials
4. Measures of Effectiveness
5. Accountability System
6. Professional Learning

Each SBE lies within a unique context, not shared in exactly the same governance model, or authority, with regard to Power of Policy in their state, but all have the Power of the Question and the Power to Convene.

• The Power of the Question is the power to ask the right Qs of the right people
• The Power to Convene is the power to bring the right people together
• The Power of Policy is the power to set policy

When a SBE has all three, then they have the Power of Collective Voice.

Learning standards define what students need to know and be able to do. All policies not only need to align with learning standards, but do so with fidelity and coherence among the six categories:

1. Expectations: for students, teachers, schools
1. Students: i.e., expectations at each grade/level and academic area; grading; matriculation
2. Teachers: preparation; certification; licensure; evaluations
3. Schools: Principal/Administrator preparation; professional learning standards; evaluation; certifications and licensure.
2. Curriculum: All policies that govern the organization of learning (scope and sequence); they are very broad levels of authority that ensure standards are aligned to curriculum. Standards establish the end product while curriculum is the means to that end.
3. Materials: including software, supplements; textbooks, all instructional resources available to teachers and students.
4. Measures of Effectiveness: Student assessment; evidence of performance of students, schools, and districts. Policies governing the Department and Board effectiveness. Some systems go beyond summative assessments to include interim, benchmark, and formative processes. All must be aligned with learning standards to be effective.
5. Accountability System: The state accountability system for federal compliance. (Under "waivers", school system support, rewards, educator effectiveness are guaranteed alignment with some policies). Also - separate school accreditation models are separate from federal accountability requirements. Are there policies that govern public reporting of Board or state-level leadership effectiveness? If so, must be aligned.
6. Professional Learning: Requirements; mentoring programs; professional licensing and certification requirements for renewal; professional growth for improved student learning.

Standards-Based Learning Framework provides a basis for Strategic Planning and for policy development based on student learning.

Strategic Planning (SP) is an outward process of alignment and coherence; a way of planning, leading, and living as a Board. The process institutionalizes the concept of continuous improvement of the system of districts, of schools, and of the Board itself.

Decision Making (DM) process is the obverse of strategic planning (SP):

• SP begins with learning standards and moves toward actions to improve student achievement

• DM points back to learning standards, examining how each choice will serve the core mission

(Robert Hull gave the example of MA BESE's 2010 "Conditions for School Effectiveness" - a tool to identify research-based practices that all schools, especially the most struggling schools, require to effectively meet the learning needs of all students. It defines conditions and how they look when implemented purposefully and with fidelity. Also, ultimately, provides conditions for state receivership).

The "hub" never changes - it's always about the learning standards - it's always about learning.

State examples as seen through the lens of a standards-based system were provided from Maryland and Delaware: 

• Maryland, with regard to their work for K-12 computer science education. 
• Delaware builds on current strategic goals and initiatives, existing structures, and partnership.

In aligning standards, there are options - look at all of the state's policies and determine:

• policies that are aligned (good, keep 'em)
• policies that are not aligned:
• decided which policies to revise so that they become aligned
• decide which policies to archive

NASBE has published Policy Updates to guide SBEs.

NASBE: Public Education Positions

I'm a member of the (PEP) Committee. We had a conference call recently to discuss how to do some revamping of the positions, with respect to establishing a process and structure for establishing new positions, reaffirming positions, and archiving positions.

• NASBE referred to the structure of the Government Affairs Committee (GAC) as a good template: members to PEP would be appointed by state boards of ed, with NASBE President appointing the Chair. After some discussion, the Committee was in unanimous support.
• NASBE had been working on a preamble for the position statements, which was brought to the Committee and ultimately supported (unanimously) after discussion.
• The Committee's recommendations will go before the NASBE Board for its support to adopt this structure on MOnday, June 20, which also requires changes to the PEP Committee Bylaws (Article X, Section 4).

If the Board votes to support one or both recommendation at its meeting on Monday, June 20, the proposal will go before the Delegate Assembly at the Annual Conference this October for a final vote and Bylaws change.

Student Data Privacy

As students, schools, and districts move more and more of their work online, ensuring data privacy has become a key issue. According to Steve Smith, Cambridge Public Schools addressed this issue before many other districts, and remains ahead of the curve in this regard, in part because families and the community had high expectations that they do so.

Steve is CPS Chief Information Officer and I recently had the occasion to meet and chat with him about his work in CPS and elsewhere. He came to lead CPS Information, Communications, and Technology Systems team seven years ago, which had been established some years before. He's passionate about helping all schools (not just CPS) become digitally and technologically savvy and he has worked in collaboration with districts and states to develop common standards for both expectations and best practices that ensure student data privacy.

Steve is also DESE's liaison to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the US and other nations. During the course of our meeting, Steve introduced me to some of the work he is leading and these are some of the links he shared as we discussed student data privacy:

• Massachusetts Privacy Alliance (MSPA): The Alliance is a collaboration of school districts in the Commonwealth that share common concerns around student data privacy. There are currently about 40 districts in the Alliance. Their first outcome is the adoption and implementation of a common Student Data Privacy Agreement to be used by all member schools when implementing any online application.

• Cambridge Public Schools have made their vendor contracts/agreements open and transparent, not only to Cambridge families, but to the public at large, via the Cambridge Public Portal to Online Applications.

• Read the CPS White Paper on Balancing Innovation with Privacy HERE. The paper includes a list of relevant federal and state laws, CPS data systems, online "cloud services", CPS Web 2.0 procedures and case studies, and more.

• Access 4 Learning Student Privacy Consortium is a unique, non-profit community of schools, districts, local authorities, states, US and International Ministries of Education, software vendors, and consultants who collectively address all aspects of learning information management and access to support learning.

• The Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) is the premier professional association for district technology leaders, including AASA, ASBO International, and ASCD. CoSN initiated the Trusted Learning Environment (TLE), a seal program that requires schools to have implemented student data privacy protections meeting a set of high standards around five core practice areas. Schools that demonstrate that they have met the Program's requirements are able to display the TLE Seal, signifying their commitment to student data privacy.

• Common Sense Media Privacy work addresses parent concerns in the ever-evolving digital technology space.

• iKeepSafe focuses on healthy digital environments for educators, students, and families.

Additional resources I have come across (I invite you to please share your resources in the Comments section at the bottom of this post):

• Commissioner's Update of May 20 included discussion on Safeguarding Student Data

• The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University's School of Law is a research center that engages in a wide spectrum of 'Net issues

• From Amelia Vance at NASBE (who introduced me to Steve): Policy Making on Education Data Privacy: Lessons Learned

• Speaking of NASBE, they dedicated their May issue of the Standard to The Power of Data

Check your knowledge of these terms and acronyms*:

• SEAs: State Education Agencies

• LEAs: Local Education Agencies

• SBEs: State Boards of Education

• Big Data**: the term used to describe data sets so large they can only be analyzed by computers

• Small Data**: a term coined by Martin Lindstrom; it is data that is small enough for human comprehension in a volume and format that is accessible, informative, and actionable

• Analytics: the term used to describe how data is collected, analyzed, and used

• PI: Personal Information

• PII: Personally Identifiable Information

• FERPA: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (of 1974) is a federal law designed to protect the privacy of student "educational records"; it established the rights of students to inspect and review their "educational records". It's outmoded for modern schools because they no longer have "educational records", they have "student data"

• PPRA: Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (of 1978) is a federal law that affords certain rights to parents of minor students with regard to surveys that ask questions of a personal nature

• COPPA: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (of 1998) is a federal law designed to protect the privacy of children under the age of 13

• SOPIPA: Student Online Personal Information Protection Act (effective January 1, 2016), is a California law and the first state law to comprehensively address student privacy

• PTAC: Privacy Technical Assistance Center at the US/ED provides guidance and best practices

- - -

* Many of these terms and acronyms were discussed last October at NASBE's pre-conference session on Student Data Privacy

** h/t to Tracy and Margaret, who attended MASBO's Annual Institute on the Cape earlier this month and shared this article on big and small data

Special Meeting of the Board: Massachusetts Educator Evaluation

I find it difficult to both attend a meeting as a member of the Board and take notes of said meeting for a blog post, especially a post I hadn't decided to do until some time afterward. Ergo, there are holes. A very busy week, nonetheless, with two Board meetings and me trying to pull together my first slidedeck for a course I begin teaching next Tuesday...all this by way of apology for getting this post out so long after the fact. Do remember these are not "minutes" and any errors and/or misrepresentations are unintentional, but are mine.

This past Monday, May 23, the Department brought forward the topic of Educator Evaluation (Ed Eval) for a Special Meeting of the Board at 5:00 PM: "Educator Evaluation: Overview, Progress Report, and Key Issues - Discussion". The Board's agenda and back-up documents are HERE.

The Department presented a brief overview of the Ed Eval system that the Board adopted in 2011 as part of the run up for Race to the Top dollars. Senior Associate Commissioner of Instructional Support, Heather Peske opened with five key priorities that had been identified for MA's new system:

• to promote growth and development
• to place student learning at the center
• to recognize excellence
• to set a high bar for tenure and
• to shorten timelines for improvement

To answer the question, "why a new Ed Eval system", Peske said that prior to 2012, evaluations rarely included student outcomes and rarely singled out excellence among educators. The system failed to ensure educator input or continuous improvement, she said, and failed to differentiate meaningfully between levels of effectiveness. By way of example, she offered: one district, a sample of 58 teacher evaluations looking at over 1,000 indicators of performance, resulted in only 1 indicator for 1 teacher rating that was less than satisfactory.

We heard from two panels. The first panel presented a statewide, national, and research view. Members of that panel included:

• Kati Haycock, CEO, The Education Trust
• Ross Weiner, Vice President and Executive Director, Education and Society Program, The Aspen Institute
• Ron Noble, DESE, Manager, Educator Evaluation, Center for Educator Effectiveness

Parenthetically, Barbara Madeloni, President, Massachusetts Teachers Association, had been scheduled to be part of this panel, too. Prior to the Board of ESE meeting, she sent a joint letter to the Commissioner, copying the Board (letter was also signed by Tom Gosnell, President, AFT Massachusetts) explaining why she had decided not to participate. I have done a copy/paste of the content of her letter at the bottom of this post. Attached to Madeloni's email was an AFT/MTA white paper explaining why evaluating educators with statewide standardized test results is neither valid nor productive.

The Department shared the "staggered rollout" of the Ed Eval system:

1. The first wave was with Level 4 schools and early adopter districts (2012-2013);
2. The second was in districts that had signed on to the Race to the Top initiative (2013-2014);
3. And in 2014-2015, the remaining districts with at least half of educators evaluated with the new system

I noted (according to DESE's handout) that since the first roll out, the number of "needs improvement" educators has steadily decreased: from 6.8% in 2012-13 to 4.1% in 2014-15. (At the NASBE Legislative Conference last month, I liveblogged the discussion with Charlotte Danielson about using state teacher evaluation systems to promote teaching and learning. Danielson said that most eval systems are for the 5-6%, not for the 94%.) 

Representing a national view was Kati Haycock, who commented that it was "evaluation season" at Ed Trust. She stated that self-reflection and quality feedback are important keys in the process there. About MA's system, she was emphatic in stating that we should "stay the course".

Haycock said that MA's system had "avoided the quagmire that other states had gotten into" through their "formulaic approach" of state imposed algorithms and "gotcha" nature to evals. 

Ross Wiener commented on the "priority of educator evaluation across the country. He talked of the importance of "valuing professional judgement, valuing growth and development, and valuing local control". He said the appreciates MA's "balanced approach" to evals and that the state avoided a "formulaic algorithm".

In response to Board questions, Haycock said there are two goals/reasons for Ed Evals:

1. To grow the knowledge and skills of students. Here, she likened educators' love for teaching to nurses with a good bedside manner; a bedside manner is important but not sufficient for the job. Educators with content and curriculum strengths she likened to salespeople who know a lot about their product; knowledge of the product is important, but they are judged by how many times they made the sale. In each case, educators must be solid in their love for teaching and learning and in continuous improvement so that they can teach every child. She said [strong ed evals] isn't unlike physicians' ratings which are very tough and very important.
2. Good evaluation systems are strong signaling systems about what's important. The strong ones focus on both the resources they have to give and the "bounce" one gets on productive efforts.

Ron Noble spoke to the Massachusetts policy; that Ed Evals have to be inclusive of a "body of evidence". That teachers and their evaluators approach evals in a "reflective, growth-oriented manner".

In response to a Board question, Haycock talked about the "issue of the moment" which she saw was the "focus on the achievement of low-income students, who are lagging substantially", and "the propensity to assign our least well-educated teachers to teach them". She said "we need to take responsibility for that", and that parents of students of color "won't be satisfied unless educators can accelerate the learning of students who come to school already behind". She said that what the adults and children are doing in MA is very powerful.

We next moved on to the second panel: Classroom, School, and District Perspectives - a much larger panel! I believe each person had four minutes to present their views.

Shakera Walker, Senior Manager of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development, BPS (also a member of the Educator Evaluation Task Force 2010-2011 - she was a teacher then):

• Previously, Principals had been challenged to complete teacher evaluations; now they are being completed;
• New evals offer Teacher voice and agency;
• She receives quality feedback and there are high expectations for all;
• In BPS, they use PAR (Peer Assistance and Review), an approach to peer mentoring and professional development.

Kate Fenton, Chief Instructional Officer, Springfield Public Schools:

• There are 2,400 Teachers in SPS;
• They have experienced accomplishments and challenges with the new system;
• SPS implemented a 2-day inter-rater reliability certificate program;
• [Fenton had more to say, but I didn't write it down. I do have an odd notation that I did write down, apparently attributable to her: School Improvement Grants @ Site Councils. This makes no sense to me, however.]

Gene Reiber, Teacher, Hanover Public Schools:

• They have experiences positive changes in culture and climate;
• Trying to identify "root causes" of student achievement (came about after they understood a too high number of students saying they experienced suicide ideation);
• Reflection is a mindful part of this work (artifacts, data, student work);
• Experienced anxiety at not having time for DDMs: compliance and PD.

Mike Sabin, Principal, McDevitt Middle School, Waltham:

• Positives/Areas of Growth:
• Spirit of continuous improvement;
• Teacher voice, goals, self-assessment, examples of student learning;
• Areas for Improvement:
• Teacher with "Needs Improvement" at the end of the third year - especially if a Teacher has moved from one particular area to a new one in their third year (in their first year of a new role) - need not result in loss of hire, and the rubric doesn't account for this;
• More resources are necessary;
• He wants a great Teacher in every classroom - that requires better tools and resources;
• Need to consider Principal work conditions and needs
• Do the math and you can understand that it will take a good chunk of time to do thoughtful, meaningful evaluations;
• Sabin is doing 14-16 evals/year; others noted that number has been as high as 35;
• He said that it isn't difficult to imagine taking at least 20% of a Principal's time to do thoughtful, meaningful evaluations;
• He also noted: "The culture of 'Needs Improvement' as a terrible thing is very strong".

Michelle Ryan, Teacher, Randolph Public Schools:

• Implementation of Ed Evals has resulted in authentic, collaborative conversations
• Common goals
• She noted that she is able to talk with other teachers about tips they might have for her to fine tune her practice
• Can applaud strengths and get support where necessary
• Promotes risk-taking for assessments
• Opportunities to be a mentor teacher at the educator preparation level
• One of the challenges has been in the small number of administration able to take on the evals - need to make a role for instructional leader in order for rich conversations
• They use "teach point" to upload their artifacts and sometimes uploading too many can be a problem

Kim Smith, Superintendent, Wakefield Public Schools:

• WPS began implementing the new eval system during 2012-2013  school year;
• They formed a Steering Committee of teachers and administrators and ultimately adopted the model system developed by DESE;
• Then they chose to adapt the model rubrics, which proved important to a smooth implementation the following year because teachers had a voice in defining the language behind the system;
• Union leadership and other educators helped refine rubrics to "make them our own", which led to deeper understanding, buy-in, and ownership;
• The Steering Committee has continued to meet monthly over the past four years to provide recommendations for each new aspect of the system, including implementation of DDMs and student/staff feedback;
• The committee also developed an Educator Resource Manual to assist faculty in navigating the new system, including homegrown forms, examples of evidence, and a DDMs orgainzational tool;
• Smith believes that by owning the process they have avoided a "compliance mindset";
• They asked, "How do we help educators view their practice through the lens of student performance, and examine ways that their instructional practice impacts student growth?"
• Subsequently, they seized the opportunity of DESE's - for districts to build an alternative pathway;
• They ended up creating a fifth standard (the state's rubric has four standards), which WPS saw as "what students do" - this focused the work on the relationship between teacher practice and student growth.

I don't remember who noted their "bias" regarding "training and support", but their district is addressing it.

Likewise, someone referred to the importance of "distributed leadership" and "differentiated support" - both seen as positive results of the evaluation implementation.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:03 PM.

- - -

Building a Breakthrough Framework for Educator Evaluation in the Commonwealth (Educator Evaluation Task Force final report; I was also a member of this Task Force)

MassPartners for Public Schools (referenced in Barbara Madeloni's letter below)

- - -

May 20, 2016

Dear Commissioner Chester,

We are writing to let you know of our concerns about Monday night’s panel on the Massachusetts Educator Evaluation system, and to inform you why I, Barbara, have decided not to participate.

The idea for a panel originated when Board of Elementary and Secondary Education member Ed Doherty informed you in March that he would like to invite members of MassPartners for Public Schools to a BESE meeting to discuss one aspect of the Educator Evaluation system: the mandate that District-Determined Measures and standardized test scores be used to generate a “student impact rating” of low, moderate or high for all licensed educators. The first such ratings are supposed to be issued this fall. As this deadline has approached, administrators and educators alike have become increasingly concerned that there is no valid, reliable and useful way to use these test scores in a meaningful evaluation system. In fact, there is concern that these ratings will do more harm than good.

We were disappointed that you decided not to focus on the impact rating but to broaden the discussion to the larger educator evaluation system. Our members do have a lot of views on the system as a whole. Deep reservations about it were expressed at recent MTA and AFT Massachusetts annual conventions. But we don’t want that longer and more complicated discussion to deflect you from our immediate concerns about the student impact rating mandate. This particular aspect of the evaluation system needs prompt attention because it is: (a) widely discredited as invalid and unreliable; (b) about to go into effect; and (c) no longer required by the federal government, with passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act.

If we had been able to have the discussion we wanted, we would have told the department and board about the widespread disapproval of the mandate among both evaluators and those being evaluated. We would have mentioned the recent New York court decision that found using these kinds of value-added measures to judge educators is invalid and unreliable. And we would have shared with you our position paper, produced by AFT Massachusetts and the MTA, which we are attaching to this email.

We repeat our request that you hold a hearing or panel discussion with the entire BESE on the impact rating issue in the very near future.  We will also welcome the opportunity at another time for Massachusetts educators and the associations that represent them to engage in a deeper conversation on the entire educator evaluation system.

Very truly yours,

Barbara Madeloni                                                                                            Thomas Gosnell

President                                                                                                            President

Massachusetts Teachers Association                                                      AFT Massachusetts

cc: Members of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education

Strong Families, Strong Schools

Based on my keynote at the Family Leadership Conference, Saturday, May 21, 2016.

When our eldest entered school, I wanted to know his teachers, the principal, and other families* in our neighborhood. I'm on the state Board of Ed now as the Parent Representative and I'm there with no particular education expertise to speak of, but by virtue of having a child in the public schools at the time I was appointed by Governor Deval L. Patrick in August 2014.

I've learned quite a lot about our children and our schools over the years as a parent, as a former Lexington School Committee Member and Chair, and as a past state PTA president. I want to share some of what I've learned about what it means - and why it's important - for modern families to be engaged in their child's education.

Over forty years of research demonstrates that when families are engaged in their children's education, student achievement and graduation rates increase and this holds true regardless of a parent's level of education, country of origin, or socio-economic status.

Schools need families to help close learning gaps, and we all need to work together to help our schools fulfill the promise that public education holds for every child, but what is it supposed to look like?

I attended a conference a while back that was focused on helping families help their children succeed at school. I didn't write down who the speaker was, but I did write what was said, and it reveals some profound indicators for families and schools:

In the homes of high-achieving children, the academic climate is in sync with the academic climate found in their schools. And together, they generate a series of attitudes and beliefs, skills and motivations that lead to higher achievement of many kinds.

With the federal update of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the language for families has been sharpened from "family involvement" to "family engagement". It's a challenging provision because we all know how busy families are these days.

Modern family engagement is not a checklist; it's about building relationships with families for student success no matter the family's culture, language, or socio-economic status. It's about understanding and co-constructing complementary roles, but before you can get there, you have to establish some core beliefs. This is what the book Beyond the Bake Sale is all about.

In Bake Sale, the authors share 4 Core Beliefs which are the four corners of family-school partnerships. I highly recommend reading and discussing the book in mixed teams: of parents, teachers, building leaders, custodians, secretaries, school committee members, selectmen, faith-based and community-base leaders, etc., because the whole community shares a role in student success.

Sharing responsibility means families become full partners with schools in an integrated, strategic way for students, not as a stand alone event, or a thing that a school or individual does. Effective family engagement is woven into everything the school does.

Approaching relationships with families in this way is to focus on a strength-based model, wherein family engagement is systemic and integrated, not something added to an already full plate; it's the sauce that brings everything together.

Shared responsibility is continuous across a child's life - from birth through adult - and it happens everywhere children learn: at home, in pre-kindergarten programs, before- and after-school programs, in school, and in faith-based and community-based programs and activities. Shared responsibility is identified as having three dimensions:

1. Opportunities: where schools and communities provide opportunities for family engagement;
2. Roles: where families, schools, and communities co-create responsibilities for student success;
3. Learning: where families, schools, and communities take stock to learn and improve practice.

Modern families engage with schools and communities to support children's learning, guide them through a complex school system, advocate for more and improved learning opportunities, and collaborate and communicate effectively with school and community partners.

Modern schools engage with families and communities in order to build relationships, communicate effectively, provide activities that link to learning and address differences, and support advocacy and share power.

* * *

* "Parent" or "family" refers to the adult/s who serve a care-giving role in a child's life.

ADDITIONAL SELECTED RESOURCES

1. 1647: 1647families.org 
2. Building Capacity for Family Engagement: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/14/11/building-capacity-family-engagement 
3. Family Engagement in Anytime, Anywhere Learning: http://www.hfrp.org/var/hfrp/storage/fckeditor/File/Family%20Engagement%20in%20Anywhere%20Anytime%20Learning_HarvardFamilyResProj.pdf  
4. Harvard Family Research Project: hfrp.org
5. Massachusetts Parent and Community Education and Involvement Advisory Council: http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/sac/parent/ (See Family, School, and Community Partnership Fundamentals: http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/sac/parent/FSCPfundamentals.pdf)
6. National Association for Family and Community Education (NAFCE): nafce.org
7. National Parent Teacher Association (National PTA): pta.org
8. The Equity and Excellence Commission Report to Education Secretary Arne Duncan: http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/eec/equity-excellence-commission-report.pdf

Crossposted to MAStewartMA.wordpress.com