REINVENTING

EDUCATOR EVALUATION
CONNECTING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE WITH STUDENT LEARNING

Center for Education Policy and Practice

Massachusetts Teachers Association POLICY BRIEF
20 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
800.392.6175

www.massteacher.org
www.massteacher.org/cepp
Paul Toner, President
Timothy Sullivan, Vice President
Ann Clarke, Executive Director-Treasurer

About the Massachusetts Teachers Association

The Massachusetts Teachers Association is a member-driven organization, governed by democratic principles, that accepts and
supports the interdependence of professionalism and unionism. The MTA promotes the use of its members’ collective power to
advance their professional and economic interests. The MTA is committed to human and civil rights and advocates for quality public
education in which lifelong learning and innovation flourish. The MTA is the 107,000-member state affiliate of the National Education
Association.

About the Center for Education Policy and Practice

The Center for Education Policy and Practice, as a division of the MTA, works with local associations, other education professional
associations and public- and private-sector organizations interested in framing and advancing education policy issues. CEPP engages
in work covering four broad areas.
1) Influence educational policy through collaborative discussions with members of the Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education, the commissioner of elementary and secondary education, the governor’s education advisors, the House and Senate
chairpersons of the education committee and leaders of professional education associations.
2) Inform, educate and improve the understanding of educational issues related to school reform, school improvement, educator
preparation, evaluation and retention.
3) Improve practice for teachers, administrators and paraprofessionals through a range of staff development programs.
4) Collaborate with MTA divisions and local association leaders to ensure that teaching and learning focused on student
achievement and school improvement become collective bargaining goals.

Citation
Skinner, K.J. (2010). Reinventing evaluation: Connecting professional practice with student learning. Boston: Massachusetts Teachers
Association.

This policy brief summarizes the Massachusetts Teachers Association’s plan for reinventing the teacher and administrator evaluation
framework in Massachusetts. A more detailed report providing specific recommended changes to the state’s regulatory framework will
follow. When that is completed, this policy brief will become the executive summary of the longer report.
Proposal for Reinventing
Educator Evaluation
Educators are committed to setting high expectations for student learning. To achieve proficiency in their professional practice,
they need the guidance and expertise of supervisors and peers in identifying both strengths and areas for improvement. Educators
– teachers and administrators – are interested in meaningful exchanges of information about their practice. The current regulatory
framework provides some meaningful guidance. However, critical elements are missing, and district implementation is uneven. This
has led to cynicism among some educators about the purpose and intent of both supervision and evaluation.
In a recent survey of over 5,100 MTA members, 76 percent indicated that evaluations identify their strengths, but only 34 percent
indicated that evaluations identify professional development that would improve their practice. In addition, evaluations often fail to
provide an adequate record of facts for personnel decisions, such as promotion or dismissal. The survey reinforces the sense in the
field that current evaluation systems often fail to provide information for continuous professional growth. Addressing these significant
disconnects is a key element of the MTA plan.
The current evaluation framework needs to be reinvented because good evaluations provide good feedback, better support and better
instruction, resulting in improved student learning. The MTA is actively involved in the Educator Evaluation Task Force appointed by the
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to make recommendations regarding how the state’s evaluation regulatory
framework should be reformed. This paper was an outgrowth of the research and discussions MTA participated in as part of that task
force, but the recommendations are MTA’s alone.
Teachers are critically important to the success of their students. Although everyone involved in education agrees on this point, there
is also consensus that our current evaluation systems do a poor job of identifying teacher and administrator strengths and weaknesses
and providing mechanisms for helping them to improve.
Many teachers contend that they are not evaluated as frequently as required by law and that when they are assessed, the process
is often superficial. They complain that they are given too little helpful feedback and too few opportunities to address any problems
that may be brought to light. Administrators, for their part, often complain that their workloads are too large. Many have received little
or no training in how to do effective evaluations. And they contend that it is too difficult to terminate unsatisfactory teachers. The
problem is circular: Terminations may be challenged because the teacher being dismissed has not been properly evaluated or given
an opportunity to improve. Both sides are dissatisfied. Ultimately, it is the students who lose when the evaluation and support system
breaks down.
Our goal is to break this cycle by proposing a new approach to evaluation – one that would help our schools meet crucial goals, keep
promising teachers in the classroom and narrow the achievement gap. In this report, we are calling for a series of changes in the
state evaluation framework that would then be incorporated into evaluation systems negotiated at the local level. It is a system that
would produce real rewards for our profession and for our schools. All students deserve a high-quality education, and improving the
evaluation process is a key step in the right direction.
Clearly, the situation as it exists is flawed. The MTA plan addresses this problem through a framework that evaluates both practice
and practitioners using student learning and outcomes as one means to validate judgments. MCAS growth scores – along with local
teacher, school and district assessments – will be used to gauge teacher and administrator performance, but not in a superficial or
formulaic way proposed by some others. Instead, the MTA plan makes sense because it takes student assessment results into account
as one measure among the mix that should be used in a truly effective – and truly fair – evaluation system.

MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice 1

 DEFICIENCIES IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM
AND MTA’S PLAN TO IMPROVE IT

Too often evaluations are superficial, based almost exclusively on brief classroom observations.
The MTA plan would require locally negotiated systems to begin with an evaluation of practice that includes self-assessment,
observations and examination of artifacts. The initial judgments would then be validated by looking at multiple measures of student
learning and outcomes. Trends in growth scores on state assessments would be one of those measures, where available, but other
measures must also be included, such as performance on district assessments, teacher-developed tests, student projects and
performance evaluations.
• If observation-based judgments are validated by measures of student learning and outcomes, the educator’s practice is rated.
• If judgments are NOT validated by measures of student learning and outcomes, the evaluator would be required to reassess the
educator’s practice to determine if there was a problem with the original assessment, a problem with the measures of student
learning, or another factor to explain the discrepancy.
• After the reassessment, the rating would be established.

Too often administrators are inadequately trained in how to conduct high-quality evaluations.
The MTA plan would require administrators and peer assistants to be trained and to demonstrate proficiency in conducting
evaluations. All those observing practice would have to complete a DESE-approved training program and pass assessment tasks to
demonstrate their knowledge and skills in:
• Observing and judging practice.
• Working with adult learners.
• Conducting difficult conversations.
• Developing and implementing professional growth or improvement plans.

Too often evaluation does not distinguish among levels of performance.

The MTA plan requires all teachers and administrators to be rated on a four-category scale: exemplary, proficient, needs
improvement, unsatisfactory. The rating would determine the educator’s professional growth or improvement plan and its duration
and consequences. Different levels of improvement planning and supervision would be required based on the rating, allowing
administrators to concentrate more on those failing to meet the standard or needing improvement.

Too often administrators are responsible for evaluating too many educators.
The MTA plan would reduce the number of educators that administrators are responsible for evaluating by recommending that districts
select educators rated at exemplary as peer assistants who would observe and assess highly rated peers with supervisory oversight.
The MTA plan recommends that districts with positive labor-management relationships consider establishing Peer Assistance and
Review programs, with financial support from the DESE, that would create the conditions for:
• Educators rated as exemplary to become peer reviewers who would assist in the assessment of novice practitioners.
• Administrators to supervise and evaluate both novice and veteran educators whose practice is identified as less than
proficient.

2 REINVENTING TEACHER EVALUATION

Too often evaluations do not identify exemplary teachers and administrators.
The MTA plan includes a Teacher Career Path that identifies instructional leadership and educational management roles, the
professional preparation for each and a DESE endorsement process for exemplary teachers, who would be eligible to apply for
positions with more responsibility and more pay, such as mentor, instructional coach or peer reviewer. In addition, the MTA plan
sets rating “gates” that must be attained in order for educators to earn Professional Teacher Status (PTS)1, for teachers to become
administrators, and for administrators to advance to higher positions.

Some administrators claim it is too difficult to dismiss teachers and administrators.

The MTA plan would set clear dismissal standards and procedures that protect due process rights. Teachers and administrators
within their first three years would still be subject to non-renewal at the discretion of the principal, as under current law. Teachers
and administrators with PTS who are rated unsatisfactory would have a one-year improvement plan. The district would be required
to define and document the guidance and support provided to implement that plan, such as professional development and peer
assistance. If the teacher or administrator was still rated unsatisfactory after at least one year of documented intensive support, that
educator could be dismissed.

HOW STUDENTS BENEFIT

The MTA plan connects the analysis of evaluation results to the goals of each educator’s professional growth plan. Educators who
are evaluated properly, provided with meaningful feedback about their practice and given guidance become better teachers and
administrators. Students benefit when:
• Educators become proficient practitioners and stay in the district.
• Educators use measures of student learning and outcomes to guide their own professional learning.
• Teachers enhance instructional skills to address student learning needs.
• Caseload educators (for example, adjustment counselors) enhance their knowledge and skills to address students’ well-being
in support of learning.
• School administrators have the instructional leadership skills to establish safe, collaborative learning environments.
• District administrators have the leadership skills to ensure that resources are used to support student learning, student well-
being and adult learning.
• Intervention with unsatisfactory educators results in improved performance or timely dismissal.
• District resources are expended on professional development rather than extended labor disputes.

1 Teachers (teachers, school librarians, school adjustment counselors, school nurses, school social workers or school psychologists)
earn Professional Teacher Status after three consecutive years of employment. PTS ensures that dismissal may only result from
just cause and that due process rights are protected. (MGL, Chapter 71, sections 41 and 42).

MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice 3

 TRIANGULATED STANDARDS-BASED
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
The MTA plan creates a Triangulated Standards-Based Evaluation Framework that replaces the existing regulatory structure. New
Standards of Professional Practice for Teachers would replace the current Principles of Effective Teaching, and new Standards of
Professional Practice for Administrators would replace the current Principles of Effective Administrative Leadership.

Standards of Professional Practice Standards of Professional Practice

for Teachers for Administrators
STANDARD 1: HIGH EXPECTATIONS STANDARD 1: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Teachers are committed to their students and their learning. Administrators implement a clear vision and engage stake-
holders so that all students are academically successful.

STANDARD 2: CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION STANDARD 2: MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach Administrators manage operations and resources to ensure
those subjects to students. a safe, efficient and effective learning environment.

STANDARD 3: ASSESSMENT STANDARD 3: FAMILY AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Teachers are responsible for managing, monitoring and Administrators collaborate with families and community
improving student learning. members, respond to diverse community interests and needs
and mobilize community resources.

STANDARD 4: REFLECTIVE PRACTICE STANDARD 4: REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn Administrators demonstrate ethical, culturally proficient and
from experience. reflective leadership.

STANDARD 5: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY STANDARD 5: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Teachers are members of learning communities. Administrators are fair and active members of a professional
learning community.

This framework is a significant change from current practice, which involves an observation-based, subjective evaluation procedure.
The MTA plan begins with observation of practice and examination of artifacts, but incorporates two more elements: validation of the
initial judgment by examining measures of student learning and outcomes and assessing evidence of professional contributions. The
various elements are combined effectively to create a unified system. All three elements are essential for providing educators with the
information they need to grow professionally and to improve student learning.
All licensed educators will be evaluated on the five standards using a triangulated framework. The purpose of evaluation is to:
• Provide information for the continuous improvement of educator performance that directly impacts student learning and well-
being.
• Create a factual record to inform personnel decisions (for example, about awarding PTS, eligibility for teacher career path
roles, promotion to administrative positions, and dismissal or demotion).

4 REINVENTING TEACHER EVALUATION

 Teacher
Teacher&&Administrator Evaluation
Administrator Evaluation Framework
Framework

OBSERVATION OF PRACTICE &

EXAMINATION OF ARTIFACTS

Va
e
ic

l
id
ct

at
ra

es
tP

Ju
ou

dg
ab

m
ts

en
TRIANGULATED
en

ts
m

ab
dg

STANDARDS-BASED

ou
Ju

tP
es

ra
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
at

c
lid

tit
io
Va

ne
r
MEASURES OF STUDENT EVIDENCE OF PROFESSIONAL
LEARNING & OUTCOMES CONTRIBUTIONS

The entry point for this framework is the observation of practice and examination of artifacts in relation to the five standards. Key
elements include:
• Self-assessment during which the educator rates his/her performance and identifies artifacts that validate the ratings.
• Observations of practice by administrators and peers using a scoring rubric related to the standards.
• Examination of artifacts of practice by administrators and peers.
To validate judgments and inform ratings for the first three standards for either teachers (High Expectations, Curriculum &
Instruction, Assessment) or administrators (Instructional Leadership, Management & Operations, Family & Community Engagement),
administrators, peers and educators should use measures of student learning and outcomes, including trends in MCAS growth scores,
where available, and other locally agreed-upon assessments, such as district-based tests or student projects.
To validate judgments and inform ratings for the last two standards for teachers and administrators (Reflective Practice and
Professional Responsibilities), administrators, peers and educators should use evidence of contributions to the school, district or the
profession.
Together these three elements are combined to provide the overall evaluation of the educator based on the Standards of Professional
Practice. This results in a rating: exemplary, proficient, needs improvement or unsatisfactory. The three factors are not separately
weighted, nor are they assigned specific percentages of the overall evaluation – all are interdependent.
The overall rating determines an educator’s professional growth plan or improvement plan: proficient or exemplary results in a self-
determined growth plan; needs improvement, a directed growth plan; and unsatisfactory, an improvement plan.
This triangulated framework rests on the strong belief that high-quality practice leads to good student learning. The goal is to rate
practitioners in a way that results in professional growth and identifies those who need more intensive intervention as well as those
eligible for career advancement. The basic principle is that one measure is insufficient for formulating judgments; the more measures
used, the more likely it is that the overall rating will be valid.

MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice 5

 Statewide standards and indicators guide the process, which begins with self-assessment followed by observation of practice
and examination of artifacts, such as lesson plans, Individual Education Plans, school schedules and district improvement plans.
Judgments about practice are validated by using multiple measures of student learning and outcomes. Judgments about the
practitioner are validated with evidence of contributions to the school, district and/or profession.
• For all licensed teachers and administrators:
- Four performance categories: exemplary, proficient, needs improvement, unsatisfactory.
- Two-year supervision and evaluation cycle for those with PTS, as per current law.
- Annual supervision and evaluation cycle for those without PTS, as per current law.
- Professional growth plans connected to school needs and practitioners’ learning goals.
- Improvement plans for those rated unsatisfactory.
• For those observing, supervising and evaluating educator practice:
- Completion of DESE-approved professional development program.
- Successful completion of performance assessment tasks.
- Endorsement of the teacher or administrator license indicating qualifications as an evaluator.

Professional Growth Plan

All educators will have a professional growth or improvement plan that identifies specific goals, learning activities, timelines and work
products. The type of plan is determined by the educator’s performance rating and PTS status.
• Self-determined plans are for educators with PTS who are rated as proficient or exemplary.
• Directed plans are for all educators without PTS and those with PTS rated as needs improvement.
• Improvement plans are for educators with PTS rated as unsatisfactory.

Two-Year Evaluation Cycle

The expectation is that most educators with PTS will enter into a two-year evaluation cycle that begins with an initial performance
rating. This rating informs the goals and activities of self-determined professional growth plans, which include periodic formative
assessments and culminate in summative evaluations. These educators will work primarily with their peers, with occasional
observations and conversations with administrators.

Annual Evaluation Cycle

All educators without PTS will have a one-year evaluation cycle with frequent formal and informal observations and supervisory
conferences. The directed professional growth plan will define specific learning activities appropriate for novice teachers or
administrators, such as induction programs and mentor-protégé meetings. It will include frequent formative assessments and
culminate in summative evaluation. These educators will work primarily with peer assistants and supervisors.
All educators with PTS who receive needs improvement ratings will have a one-year evaluation cycle with frequent formal and
informal observations and supervisory conferences. The directed professional growth plan will define specific learning activities
directly related to the educator’s performance standards. It will include frequent formative assessments and culminate in a summative
evaluation. These educators will work primarily with peer assistants and supervisors.

Improvement Plan Process

An educator with PTS whose overall performance is rated unsatisfactory will be placed on a one-year improvement plan that sets
goals for the specific knowledge, skills or practices the educator must improve and the measures by which progress toward attainment
of the plan goals will be determined. The plan must clearly define the professional development, administrative support and evidence of
progress required over a one-year period. If, after at least one year of documented intensive administrative support, the educator fails
to make adequate progress toward achieving the plan’s goals, the educator may be dismissed or demoted.

6 REINVENTING TEACHER EVALUATION

Career Advancement
Educator evaluations should be used to inform critical decisions about career advancement; this is a key factor that is not currently
addressed in existing regulations (603 CMR 35.00). Through this Triangulated Standards-Based Evaluation Framework, a record of facts
and assessments will be available for use in critical personnel decision making. In order to:
• Achieve PTS, the educator’s performance rating should be proficient.
• Advance to an administrative position, the teacher’s performance rating should be exemplary.
• Advance into teacher career path-positions, the educator’s performance rating should be exemplary.
• Advance to a higher administrative position, the administrator’s performance rating should be exemplary.

Peer Assistance and Review Programs

The MTA plan recommends that any district with positive labor-management relations and interest in establishing a Peer Assistance
and Review program should receive financial support from the DESE and technical assistance from professional providers with the
requisite expertise. PAR programs provide career-path opportunities for exemplary teachers to become peer assistants and peer
reviewers. By shifting the assistance and assessment of practice for novice practitioners from administrators to trained teachers, the
workload for administrators is reduced. In addition, many educators say they would prefer to receive guidance from peers who have
jobs similar to their own rather than from a supervisor who may have little experience with teaching particular grades or subjects.

Qualifications for Administrators and Peer Assistants

Successful implementation depends on the abilities and qualifications of those who are observing, supervising and evaluating educator
practice. As a result, any educator who will do this critical work must have a Professional License and successfully complete a DESE-
approved training program that includes evidence of knowledge and skills related to:
• Observing practice and examination of artifacts.
• Validating judgments through multiple measures of student learning and outcomes and evidence of contributions to the school,
district or profession.
• Designing and implementing professional growth plans and improvement plans.
• Conducting difficult conversations.
A critical component to address the cynicism within the field is ensuring that those who are judging practice have been practitioners
themselves. Educators who are observing, supervising and evaluating must have five years of appropriate experience: teaching
experience for assessing teachers; caseload experience for assessing caseload educators, such as counselors, case managers or
school nurses; and administrative experience for assessing administrators.

Implementation
Changing the framework and systems by which educators are evaluated is complex work. The DESE should work with the professional
associations to outline a three-year implementation plan that aligns with the RTTT requirements. The plan must:
• Address the training of approximately 8,000 administrators and teachers who will do this work.
• Identify pilot districts most likely to implement a new evaluation system in the 2011-12 school year.
• Develop a regional reporting process for other district and association/union teams to learn from pilot districts.
• Identify those districts that will implement in 2012-13 and those that will implement in 2013-14.

MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice 7

 Collective Bargaining
The new regulatory framework provides guidance to district and union leaders who determine the details of the local evaluation
system through collective bargaining as required by Chapter 150E. Elements should include:
• Performance indicators aligned to the Standards of Professional Practice.
• Specific multiple measures of student learning and outcomes.
• Specific evidence related to contributions to the school, district or profession.
• Procedures related to:
- Self-assessment.
- Formal and informal observations.
- Examination of artifacts.
- Validation with measures of student learning and outcomes.
- Validation with evidence of professional contributions.
• Timelines, protocols and forms.
If the association/union and management decide that a Peer Assistance and Review program would be beneficial to the district, the
decision to implement it and all the program elements are subject to collective bargaining.

8 REINVENTING TEACHER EVALUATION

EVALUATION CYCLE
All educators enter the evaluation cycle with a rating based on the triangulated framework.
Two-Year Cycle: Educators who have an overall rating of proficient or exemplary will develop a two-year self-determined growth
plan that will be monitored by peers and/or administrators who will contribute to the overall summative evaluation rating at the end
of a two-year cycle of formative assessments. Provided that their practice continues to be rated in one of these two categories, they
continue in a two-year cycle.

OBSERVATIONS

MEASURES EVIDENCE

Eligible for
Unsatisfactory Needs Additional Roles
Proficient Exemplary
Improvement & Responsibilities

1-Year Improvement Plan Improves 1-Year 2-Year

Directed Self-Determined
Growth Plan Growth Plan

Does Not Improve Does Not Improve

Dismissed or Demoted

Annual Cycle:
• Educators with PTS who have an overall rating of needs improvement will develop a one-year directed growth plan that will
be monitored by administrators who will determine the overall summative evaluation rating. Educators whose performance
improves will enter into the two-year cycle.
• All novice educators (teachers and administrators in their first three years of practice) will be on an annual evaluation cycle.
This directed growth plan may require the completion of district induction programs, engagement in mentoring activities and
other activities related to the educator’s individual needs.
Improvement Plan: Educators who have an overall rating of unsatisfactory will be placed on a 12-month improvement plan
(June 1-May 31) that prescribes professional development, administrative support, peer assistance, required work products, and
benchmarks. Educators whose performance indicates significant progress toward achieving the improvement goals may move to
either the annual or two-year cycle depending on their rating. Educators who do not make significant progress may be dismissed or
demoted.


MTA Center for Education Policy and Practice 9

 REINVENTING
EDUCATOR EVALUATION
CONNECTING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE WITH STUDENT LEARNING

Center for Education Policy and Practice

Massachusetts Teachers Association POLICY BRIEF
20 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
800.392.6175

www.massteacher.org
www.massteacher.org/cepp