Springfield Public Schools Effective
Educator Development System
(SEEDS)
Planning and Implementation Guide
2012-2013
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
This document was adapted from
the Model System School-Level Planning and Implementation Guide
developed by Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page i
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6
The Opportunity ............................................................................................................................. 6
The Purpose of this Guide ............................................................................................................ 7
Springfield Effective Educator Development System Framework ............................................ 8
Priorities for Implementing the Framework .............................................................................. 10
Coherence ......................................................................................................................... 10
Connection ........................................................................................................................ 11
Collaboration ..................................................................................................................... 11
Conversation ..................................................................................................................... 11
Phases in Implementation ........................................................................................................... 12
Using This Guide .......................................................................................................................... 12
Overview for Educators and Evaluators ................................................................... 16
Practical Guide for Educators on One Year Plans ................................................................... 17
Practical Guide for Educators with PTS on Two Year Plans ................................................... 19
Practical Guide for Evaluators .................................................................................................... 21
Step 1: Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal ................................................................ 24
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Time Frame ................................................................................................................................... 24
Required Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 25
Getting Started ............................................................................................................................. 25
Conditions for Readiness .................................................................................................. 25
Suggested Resources ....................................................................................................... 28
Tools & Forms ................................................................................................................... 29
Recommended Actions for Educators and Evaluators ............................................................ 30
Common Questions on Goal Proposal ...................................................................................... 31
Key Components to Establishing and Sustaining Effective Teacher Teams ........................ 32
Step 2: Goal Setting & Plan Development ................................................................. 33
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Time Frame ................................................................................................................................... 34
Required Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 34
Getting Started ............................................................................................................................. 35
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page ii
Conditions for Readiness .................................................................................................. 35
Considerations for Planning .............................................................................................. 36
Suggested Resources ....................................................................................................... 37
Tools & Forms ................................................................................................................... 37
Recommended Actions for Educators and Evaluators ............................................................ 38
Suggestions for Refining Goals and Developing Plans ........................................................... 39
Evaluating Educators Serving in Multiple Roles ...................................................................... 40
Step 3: Implementation of the Plan............................................................................ 40
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 41
Time Frame ................................................................................................................................... 41
Required Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 42
Observation Protocol ................................................................................................................... 43
Improvement Plan ........................................................................................................................ 44
Getting Started ............................................................................................................................. 45
Conditions for Readiness .................................................................................................. 45
Considerations for Planning .............................................................................................. 45
Suggested Resources ....................................................................................................... 48
Tools & Forms ................................................................................................................... 48
Recommended Actions for Educators and Evaluators ............................................................ 49
Strategies and Suggestions for Observations .......................................................................... 50
Step 4: Formative Assessment & Evaluation ........................................................... 50
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 51
Time Frame ................................................................................................................................... 51
Required Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 52
Getting Started ............................................................................................................................. 53
Conditions for Readiness .................................................................................................. 53
Considerations for Planning .............................................................................................. 54
Suggested Resources ....................................................................................................... 54
Tools & Forms ................................................................................................................... 55
Recommended Actions for Educators and Evaluators ............................................................ 56
Formative Conference Process (if necessary) .......................................................................... 57
Changing the Educator Plan after a Formative Assessment or Evaluation .......................... 58
Step 5: Summative Evaluation ................................................................................... 58
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page iii
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 59
Time Frame ................................................................................................................................... 59
Required Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 60
Getting Started ............................................................................................................................. 61
Conditions for Readiness .................................................................................................. 61
Considerations for Planning .............................................................................................. 61
Suggested Resources ....................................................................................................... 62
Tools & Forms ................................................................................................................... 62
Recommended Actions for Educators and Evaluators ............................................................ 63
Moving Forward ........................................................................................................................... 64
References ................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix A: Forms ................................................................................................... A-1
Overview of Forms ......................................................................................................................... 1
Self-Assessment and Goal Setting Form .................................................................................... 1
Educator Announced Observation Form..................................................................................... 1
Educator Unannounced Observation Form ................................................................................ 1
Formative Assessment .................................................................................................................. 1
Formative Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 1
Summative Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 1
Improvement Plan .......................................................................................................................... 1
Appendix B: Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher
Rubric ......................................................................................................................... B-1
Structure of the Teacher Rubric ............................................................................................................ 1
Use of the Teacher Rubric .................................................................................................................... 1
Appendix C: Evidence Collection Guide ................................................................. C-1
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions .............................................................. D-1
Educator Evaluation Regulations (603 CMR 35.00) ................................................................ D-2
Springfield Public Schools Effective Educator Development System (SEEDS) ................. D-4
Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal ........................................................................................... D-5
Goal Setting & Plan Development ............................................................................................ D-6
Implementation of the Plan ....................................................................................................... D-8
Formative Assessment & Evaluation ..................................................................................... D-10
Summative Evaluation ............................................................................................................. D-11
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page iv
Student Learning, Growth, and Achievement ....................................................................... D-13
ESE Support for Educator Evaluation ................................................................................... D-14
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract Language ............ E-1
Appendix F: Setting SMART Goals Guide ................................................................ F-1
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page v
Introduction
The Opportunity
Springfield Public Schools is a district that pursues and cultivates a culture of educational excellence. The
district’s mission is to provide the highest quality education so that all students are empowered to realize
st
their full potential and lead fulfilling lives as lifelong learners, responsible citizens, and leaders in the 21
century.
To achieve the mission, SPS has created the Springfield Improvement Framework to guide all initiatives
within the district:
1. Identify and implement a schoolwide instructional focus.
2. Develop professional collaboration teams to improve teaching and learning for all students.
3. Identify, learn and use effective evidence-based teaching practices to meet the needs of each
student.
4. Create a targeted professional development plan that builds expertise in selected best practices.
5. Re-align resources (people, time, talent, energy and money) to support the instructional focus.
6. Engage families and the community in supporting the instructional focus.
7. Create an internal accountability system growing out of student learning goals that promote
measurable gains in learning for every student and eliminates achievement gaps.
All new and ongoing initiatives at Springfield Public Schools fit within the improvement framework and
seek to achieve four broader, interrelated objectives:
1. Coach, develop and evaluate educators based on a clear vision of strong instruction
2. Implement a consistent, rigorous curriculum built on common standards with common unit
assessments
3. Deploy data that is timely, accurate and accessible to make decisions for students, schools and
the district
4. Strengthen social, emotional and academic safety nets and supports for all students
The district believes that these four objectives should work together to raise student achievement.
These district objectives also align with that of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education (BESE), which adopted new regulations in 2011 to promote the growth and development of
educators across the state. Accordingly, Springfield Public Schools, with guidance from the BESE, has
developed a new educator evaluation system, called the Springfield Educator Effectiveness and
Development System (SEEDS) to achieve its objective to coach, develop and evaluate educators based
on a clear vision of strong instruction (objective #1). SEEDS is based on the regulations mandated by the
state of Massachusetts, the implementation guidance provided by BESE, and a locally negotiated
agreement between the local school committee and the Springfield Education Association.
The driving principles of this SEEDS are that teachers are the most important resource of the school
system and of the Springfield community, that teachers have the most important impact on the success
and growth of student learning and that teachers should have the opportunity to demonstrate their
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 6
Introduction
professional contributions to student learning and to the school system in a variety of ways. SEEDS has
been designed first and foremost to promote leaders’ and teachers’ growth and development. It’s an effort
to move away from a system that is divorced from student learning and is superficial, ritualistic and
passive, experienced by many as something ―done to them.‖
The new system is designed to change all this when well-implemented. Each educator will take a leading
role in shaping his/her professional growth and development.

Every educator will assess his/her own performance and propose one or more challenging goals
for improving his/her own practice. A formal process for reflection and self-assessment creates
the foundation of a new opportunity for educators to chart their own course for professional
growth and development.

Every educator will be using a rubric that offers a detailed picture of practice at four levels of
performance. District-wide rubrics set the stage for both deep reflection and the rich dialogue
about practice that our profession seeks.

Every educator will also consider their students’ needs using a wide range of ways to assess
student growth and propose one or more challenging goals for improving student learning. They
will be able to monitor progress carefully and analyze the impact of their hard work.

Every educator will be expected to consider team goals, a clear indication of the value the new
process places on both collaboration and accountability.

Every educator will compile and present evidence and conclusions about their performance and
progress on their goals, ensuring that the educator voice is critical to the process.
These and other features of the new educator evaluation system hold great promise for improving
educator practice, school climate and student learning. To turn promise into reality, every educator—and
the teams they work with—will need to be supported to do this new work effectively and efficiently. This
Implementation Guide aims to provide support for school leadership, evaluators of school staff, and
educators as they plan for and implement the new regulations.
The Purpose of this Guide
1
This guide is intended to support school-level leadership teams, evaluators, and educators as they
determine their level of readiness, plan for implementation, and implement the new Springfield Effective
Educator Development System (SEEDS). In addition, the guide will prepare school leadership teams of
educators and administrators to assume a key role in design and implementation, empowering the teams
to offer informed expertise and critical insight as to considerations vital to success at the school-level.
This guide will:

introduce the requirements of the regulations as well as the principles and the priorities that
underlie SEEDS;
1
―Educator‖ is used in this guide to refer to classroom teachers and caseload educators (educators who teach or
counsel individual or small groups of students through consultation with the regular classroom teacher, such as
school nurses, guidance or adjustment counselors, speech and language pathologists, and some special education
teachers). ―Educator‖ also refers to administrators when they are engaged in ―being evaluated‖ as distinct from a role
of ―Evaluator.‖
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 7
Introduction

outline the steps, suggested timelines, and resources that are necessary for all schools;

recommend specific action steps;

highlight considerations for preparing, planning, and implementation;

and provide the relevant tools and forms to aid implementation.
Each section of the guide contains information that is relevant to all school staff. Within each section,
some parts may focus more heavily on the responsibilities of evaluators; some will focus on the
responsibilities of educator teams and individuals; and some will focus on the responsibilities of school
leadership teams of teacher and administrators that collaborate to plan, implement, and monitor
evaluation efforts. For example, reading this guide will help the school leadership team identify strategies
for rigorous yet practical implementation, create and/or tailor professional development for school staff,
and develop systems and processes that will support and streamline evaluation efforts.
The primary—although not exclusive—focus of this guide is on evaluation of classroom teachers and
caseload educators. This is not because evaluating department heads, assistant principals, and other
school-level administrators is not important and will not require major changes in practice currently in
place in many schools and districts, but because there are many more classroom teachers and caseload
educators than there are administrators. That said, much of what is written in this guide will apply to
evaluating school-level administrators, noting, of course, that collective bargaining will determine details
in each district.
Early lessons from the field, which have both raised questions and offered solutions, have been
incorporated throughout the Guide, as have critical insights from state associations, union leaders, and
other partners.
Springfield Effective Educator Development System Framework
SEEDS is based on a framework that includes five key design features, as mandated by the regulations:
1. Statewide Standards and Indicators for Effective Administrative Leadership and Teaching
Practice. The State proposed a set of Standards and Indicators intended to promote a statewide
understanding about what effective teaching and administrative practice looks like. The process
included an extensive comparison of relevant state and national standards. According to the
report, ―They serve as the spine of the new evaluation framework, and will do so in the evaluation
systems that districts adopt.‖ The regulations define Standards and Indicators for Effective
Teaching Practice and for Administrative Leadership Practice (603 CMR 35.03 and 603 CMR
35.04).
2. Three Categories of Evidence. To assess educator performance on the Standards and
Indicators, the State called for three categories of evidence to be used in every district’s educator
evaluation system. The regulations describe: multiple measures of student learning, growth, and
2
achievement ; judgments based on observation and artifacts of professional practice, including
2
The final regulations approved by BESE include a more explicit focus on student learning, adding a statewide scale
for rating educator impact on student learning as low, moderate, or high. Beginning in 2013-14, district will use
―district-determined measures of student learning which must be comparable across grade or subject district-wide‖ to
determine impact. This is distinct from the use of multiple measures as a category of evidence to rate educator
performance. Also starting in 2013-14, additional evidence relevant to one or more performance standards will
include student feedback, and will include staff feedback with respect to administrators.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 8
Introduction
unannounced observations of practice of any duration; and additional evidence relevant to one or
more Performance Standards (603 CMR 35.07(1)).
3. Statewide Performance Rating Scale. The performance of every educator is rated against the
Performance Standards described above. All educators earn one of four ratings: Exemplary,
Proficient,
Needs
Improvement,
or
Unsatisfactory. Each rating has a specific
meaning:

Exemplary performance represents a
level of performance that exceeds the
already high standard of Proficient. A
rating of Exemplary is reserved for
performance on an Indicator or Standard
that is of such a high level that it could
serve as a model. Few educators are
expected to earn Exemplary ratings on
more than a handful of Indicators.

Proficient performance is understood to
be fully satisfactory. This is the rigorous
expected level of performance; demanding, but attainable.

Needs Improvement indicates performance that is below the requirements of a Standard but
is not considered to be Unsatisfactory at the time. Improvement is necessary and expected.

Unsatisfactory performance is merited when performance has not significantly improved
following a rating of Needs Improvement, or performance is consistently below the
requirements of a standard and is considered inadequate, or both.
4. Five-Step Evaluation Cycle. This Implementation Guide is organized around the five-step cycle
required for all educators, a centerpiece of the new regulations designed to have all educators
play a more active, engaged role in their professional growth and development.
Under the regulations, evaluation begins with self-assessment and concludes with summative
3
evaluation and rating of the educator’s impact on student learning . It also is a continuous
improvement process in which evidence from the summative evaluation and rating of impact on
learning become important sources of information for the educator’s self-assessment and
subsequent goal setting.
5. Four Educator Plans. The State prioritized differentiating evaluation by both career stage and
performance. The regulations define four different Educator Plans. The following three plans
apply only to ―Experienced‖ educators defined as a teacher with Professional Teacher Status
(PTS) or an administrator with more than three years in an administrative position in the school
district:
 The Self-Directed Growth Plan applies to educators rated Proficient or Exemplary and is
developed by the educator. When the Rating of Impact on Student Learning is
3
The Rating of Impact on Student Learning will be implemented beginning in 2013-14.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 9
Introduction
implemented (beginning in 2013-14), educators with a Moderate or High Rating of Impact
will be on a two-year plan; educators with a Low Rating will be on a one-year plan.
 The Directed Growth Plan applies to educators rated Needs Improvement and is a plan of
one school year or less developed by the educator and the evaluator.
 The Improvement Plan applies to educators rated Unsatisfactory and is a plan of no less
than 30 school days and no longer than one school year, developed by the evaluator.
Few new educators are expected to be Proficient on every Indicator or even every Standard in
their first years of practice. Therefore, the fourth plan applies to teachers without Professional
Teacher Status, an administrator in their first three years in a district, or an educator in a new
assignment (at the discretion of an evaluator):
 The Developing Educator Plan is developed by the educator and the evaluator and is for
one school year or less.
Priorities for Implementing the Framework
―Simply put, poor evaluation practices are a missed opportunity for promoting better leading, better
teaching, better learning, and better schools.‖
This statement highlights the underlying principles of these regulations: the purpose of evaluation is to
promote student learning by providing educators with feedback for improvement and enhanced
opportunities for professional growth. To achieve this, all educators—school and district alike—must
maintain a focus on creating the conditions that can realize this vision. This requires an approach that is
both thoughtful and strategic so that evaluation can be seized as an opportunity.
Approaching educator evaluation thoughtfully and strategically requires attention to coherence,
connection, collaboration and conversation. Attending to each will help create the synergy needed to
ensure that the new educator evaluation system will achieve its twin goals of supporting educator growth
and student achievement.
Coherence
Create coherence and leverage opportunities to reinforce it. Without explicit linkage to other priorities
and on-going work, the new educator evaluation regulations will be both perceived and undertaken as an
―add on‖ that is disconnected from daily practice and big picture goals for the school and district, limiting
opportunities for feedback and growth. Linking the data analysis, self-assessment, goal setting, and
evidence collection activities required for educator evaluation to key activities already underway in the
school is one way to build this coherence.
For example, SPS is transitioning to the Common Core and the new MA Frameworks in Mathematics and
English Language Arts. Team goal setting in the evaluation cycle can be used to advance this work:
teacher teams can share the common professional practice goal of learning ―backwards design‖
principles and applying them to design together a unit that aligns with the new Frameworks. Department,
grade level and/or faculty meetings can provide opportunity to share and critique models.
Similarly, a school may be revamping parent-teacher conferences. In this case, the evidence collection
component of the evaluation cycle—for both evaluators and educators—could focus on collecting and
analyzing data about the implementation and impact of this change in practice. At one faculty meeting,
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 10
Introduction
indicators for Standard III (Parent Engagement) can be ―unpacked‖ and new expectations for the
conferences developed; at a later one, faculty can share their experiences and the feedback they solicited
in order to refine the practice for the future.
Connection
Connect individual educator goals to school and district priorities. Connecting individual educator
goals to larger school and district priorities is critical to effective implementation. Strong vertical alignment
between individual, team, school and district goals will accelerate progress on the goals. For example, if
the district is determined to build a strong tiered system of support in mathematics, it makes sense to ask
individuals and their teams to focus self-assessment and goal setting on areas most closely associated
with that work. When the benchmarks of progress detailed in Educator Plans are connected to the
benchmarks in school and district improvement plans, their achievement will reinforce and accelerate
progress. As important, when individual educators and teams are having trouble meeting their
benchmarks, stakeholders will have a signal that school and district plans may need review.
Collaboration
Support teacher and administrator teams to collaborate throughout the cycle. Grade-level,
department and other teams can use the steps in the evaluation cycle to help focus their work and learn
from one another more systematically, thus enhancing opportunities for professional growth and feedback
for improvement. ―Unpacking‖ several specific indicators and elements together as part of the selfassessment process can lead to identifying models and agreeing on team goals. Analyzing formative
assessments or other student learning data together will sharpen each member’s insights and can lead to
decisions to refine the action steps for the student learning goals. Similarly, team members can share
individual professional practice goals and make plans to develop model lessons or units and observe
each other’s classes.
Conversation
Engage everyone in on-going conversation about improving practice.
Creating a shared
understanding of effective practice is not limited to teams, however. Encouraging reflection and dialogue
among teams, individuals, colleagues, and school leaders around the rubrics, student data, and teaching
strategies is at the heart of the new educator evaluation process. Create time and space for those
conversations throughout the evaluation cycle—during common planning time, faculty meetings, and
professional development sessions—and in classrooms, hallways and faculty rooms. On-going, focused
conversations about practice following frequent, short classroom visits are essential. So, too, are
conversations in well-structured faculty and team meetings and through review and analysis of products
and practices. All of these conversations will help create a shared vision of effective practice, a critical
ingredient for nearly every strong and improving school.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 11
Introduction
Phases in Implementation
SEEDS will continue to evolve, as the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
have determined that the regulations will be implemented over multiple years, consisting of three phases.
In addition, BESE expects to provide more guidance over the next years as best practices emerge and
lessons are learned from the field. One or more additional role-specific rubrics and a model for peer
assistance and review are also anticipated.
The regulations call for districts to phase in components of the evaluation system over several years:

Phase I: summative ratings based on attainment of goals and performance against the four
Standards defined in the educator evaluation regulations. On January 10, 2012, ESE released
models and guidance for superintendent, principal and teacher evaluation.
Phase II: rating educator impact on student learning gains based on trends and patterns for
multiple measures of student learning gains. ESE will provide guidance by June 2012.
Phase III: use feedback from students and (for administrators) staff as evidence in the evaluation
process. ESE will provide guidance by June 2013.
This guide introduces SEEDS at the school-level, familiarizing the reader with the tools that are available
to support implementation including forms and rubrics.
Using This Guide
The SPS Planning and Implementation Guide is designed to both outline requirements from the
regulations and the labor agreement, as well as offer recommendations and suggestions for
implementation. The regulations and the labor agreement describe the mandatory parameters of the
evaluation framework. The suggestions are intended to support schools to strategically and effectively
implement the framework. They are based on research, best practices in other states, and learning from
the Massachusetts districts and schools that have begun implementation.
The first part of the guide gives a high-level overview of SEEDS with checklists and timelines for
educators and evaluators for implementation purposes. The rest of the guide is divided into five major
sections that correspond to the five steps of the cycle (self-assessment and goal proposal; goal setting
and plan development; implementation of the plan; formative assessment/evaluation; and summative
evaluation). Each of the five sections is organized as follows:

Overview – describes the step of the cycle

Time Frame – describes window in which step occurs during a typical school year/evaluation
cycle

Required Outcomes – lists all the steps that need completion by the end of the process, with
who is primarily responsible for completing each step as well as suggested dates of completion

Getting Started – this section includes:
o
Conditions for Readiness – describe school-wide knowledge, capacity, and information
that will increase the readiness of educators and evaluators to effectively implement the
step;
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 12
Introduction
o
Considerations for Planning – highlights key logistics and practical considerations for
implementation that will help school leadership teams, educators, and evaluators plan;
o
Suggested Resources – lists concrete documents or pieces of information needed for
successful implementation of the step; and
o
Tools & Forms – lists the tools and forms that should be used during the process

Recommended Actions for Educators and Evaluators– table of specific steps educators,
teams, evaluators, and/or school leadership teams should take. These tables are organized by
who carries out each step, and notes issues to consider based on both research and lessons
learned from early implementers of the regulations

One or more Step-Specific Topics to provide in-depth guidance on particular considerations or
recommendations that warrant further detail or clarification, such as Conducting Observations
At the end of the Guide, you will find resources in the Appendix resources that are referenced throughout
the Guide.
Please note that this is the first draft of this Guide; it will continue to be refined and added to as ESE
completes guidance on: 1) rating educator impact on student learning based on state and district
measures of student learning and 2) collecting and using student and staff feedback.
As it becomes available, this Guide will also be supplemented with a set of fictional case studies
demonstrating the evaluation process through a variety of scenarios, examples, and samples of
completed forms.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 13
Timeline for Two-Year Cycle
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 14
Timeline for One-Year Cycle
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 15
Overview for Educators and Evaluators
At the core of the Springfield Effective Educator Development System is the belief that effectiveness of
educators is the single most important driver of student success; thus, SEEDS has been designed to
promote educators’ growth and development. It’s an effort to move away from a system that is divorced
from student learning and is superficial, ritualistic and passive.
SEEDS is based on the 5-step evaluation cycle, which will inform the progression of activities throughout
the evaluation cycle. An overview of the 5-step evaluation cycle is below:
1. Self-Assessment: the cycle begins with a
chance for the educator to conduct a selfassessment and goal proposal. The purpose of
this step is for the educators to ownership of
their own development by analyzing student
data, reflecting on their performance, and
proposing goals they want to work towards
during the cycle.
2. Analysis, Goal Setting, and Plan
Development: the second step is for educators
to share their self-assessments and proposed
goals with evaluators, who will work with the
educators to refine the proposed goals as
needed and develop Educator Plans that identify
activities and supports that will drive improvement and progress toward goal attainment. The
Educator Plans will be determined based on the educators’ most recent summative rating and the
supports required to achieve their goals.
3. Implementation of the Plan: The third step is for educators and evaluators to implement the
Educator Plans. The responsibility for this step is divided between educators and evaluators. The
educators will pursue the attainment of the goals identified in the Educator Plan and collect
evidence on, at minimum, their fulfillment of professional responsibilities and engagement with
families. Evaluators will provide educators with feedback for improvement, ensure timely access
to planned supports, and collect evidence on educator performance and progress toward goals
through multiple sources, including unannounced observations.
4. Formative Assessment / Evaluation: The fourth step ensures an opportunity for educators to
receive feedback and suggestions for improvement. Formative assessments should be ongoing
and used to prompt reflection, promote dialogue between educators and evaluators, and plan
changes to practice, goals, or planned activities when adjustments are necessary. At a minimum,
formative assessments should be a mid-cycle opportunity of taking stock, implemented through a
review of evidence collected by both the educator and the evaluator.
5. Summative Evaluation: The final step of the cycle is the summative evaluation. In this
evaluation step, evaluators analyze evidence that demonstrates the educator’s performance
against Performance Standards and evidence of the attainment of the goals in the Educator Plan
to arrive at a rating on each standard and an overall performance rating based on the evaluator's
professional judgment. Evidence and professional judgment inform the evaluator’s determination.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 16
Overview for Educators and Evaluators
Practical Guide for Educators on One Year Plans
Suggested
Due Date
To do (with explanations)
Forms*
 The Educator completes and submits a self-assessment
Self-Assessment
& Goal-Setting
Form
October 1
Self-Assessment
& Goal-Setting
Form
October 1
Self-Assessment
& Goal-Setting
Form
October 1
Evidence
Collection Guide
January 18
to the Evaluator, which includes:

An analysis of evidence of student learning, growth
and achievement for students under the Educator’s
responsibility.

An assessment of practice against each of the four
Performance Standards of effective practice using
the district’s rubric.
 The Educator completes and submits proposed goals* to
the Evaluator, which includes:

At least one goal directly related to improving the
Educator’s own professional practice.

At least one goal directed related to improving
student learning.
 The Evaluator and Educator meet to determine the goals
to be included in the Educator Plan and to develop an
Educator Plan, using:

The goals the Educator has proposed in the SelfAssessment.

Evidence of Educator performance and impact on
1
student learning, growth and achievement based on
the Educator’s self-assessment and other sources
that Evaluator shares with the Educator.
 The Educator provides 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 provide additional evidence of
performances against the four Performance Standards.
*All forms can be found in Appendix A, and the Evidence Collection Guide can be found in Appendix C
1
The process for determining the Educator’s impact on student learning, growth and achievement will be determined
and negotiated after ESE issues guidance on this matter
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 17
Overview for Educators and Evaluators
To do (with explanations)
Forms*
Suggested
Due Date
 Once the Educator receives the completed mid-cycle
Formative
Assessment
Form
Within 5 school
days of receipt
(contractual)
Evidence
Collection Guide
April 20
Summative
Evaluation Form
June 1
(contractual)
Formative Assessment Report around February, the
Educator signs the report within 5 school days of
receiving the report.

The Educator may reply in writing to the report within
10 school days of receiving the report.
 The Educator provides 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 provide additional evidence of the
Educator’s performances against the four Performance
Standards.
 Once the Educator receives the completed Summative
Evaluation Form, the Educator signs the Summative
Evaluation Form.

The Educator may reply in writing to the report within
5 school days of receipt.
 If the Educator received an overall Summative Evaluation
ratings of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory, the
Evaluator meets with the Educator.

June 1
(contractual)
The Evaluator may meet with Educators whose
ratings are Proficient or Exemplary, if requested.
*All forms can be found in Appendix A, and the Evidence Collection Guide can be found in Appendix C
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 18
Overview for Educators and Evaluators
Practical Guide for Educators with PTS on Two Year Plans
Suggested
Due Date
To do (with explanations)
Forms*
 The Educator completes and submits a self-assessment
Self-Assessment
& Goal-Setting
Form
Year 1; October 1
Self-Assessment
& Goal-Setting
Form
Year 1; October 1
Self-Assessment
& Goal-Setting
Form
Year 1; October 1
Evidence
Collection Guide
Year 1; April 20
Formative
Evaluation Form
Year 1; June 1
to the Evaluator, which includes:

An analysis of evidence of student learning, growth
and achievement for students under the Educator’s
responsibility.

An assessment of practice against each of the four
Performance Standards of effective practice using
the district’s rubric.
 The Educator completes and submits proposed goals to
the Evaluator, which includes:

At least one goal directly related to improving the
Educator’s own professional practice.

At least one goal directed related to improving
student learning.
 The Evaluator and Educator meet to determine the goals
to be included in the Educator Plan and to develop an
Educator Plan, using:

The goals the Educator has proposed in the SelfAssessment.

Evidence of Educator performance and impact on
student learning, growth and achievement based on
the Educator’s self-assessment and other sources
that Evaluator shares with the Educator.
 The Educator provides 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 provide additional evidence of
performances against the four Performance Standards.
 Once the Educator receives the completed Formative
Evaluation Form, the Educator signs the Formative
Evaluation Form.

The Educator may reply in writing to the report within
5 school days of receipt.

Upon request, the Educator may meet with the
Evaluator either before or after completion of the
Formative Evaluation Report
*All forms can be found in Appendix A, and the Evidence Collection Guide can be found in Appendix C
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 19
Overview for Educators and Evaluators
Suggested
Due Date
To do (with explanations)
Forms*
 The Educator provides to the Evaluator evidence of
Evidence
Collection Guide
Year 2; April 20
Summative
Evaluation Form
Year 2; June 1
(contractual)
family outreach and engagement, fulfillment of
professional responsibility and growth, and progress on
attaining professional practice and student learning goals.
The Educator may provide additional evidence of the
Educator’s performances against the four Performance
Standards.
 Once the Educator receives the completed Summative
Evaluation Form, the Educator signs the Summative
Evaluation Form.

The Educator may reply in writing to the report within
5 school days of receipt.
 If the Educator received an overall Summative Evaluation
ratings of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory, the
Evaluator meets with the Educator.

Year 2; June 1
(contractual)
The Evaluator may meet with Educators whose
ratings are Proficient or Exemplary, if requested.
*All forms can be found in Appendix A, and the Evidence Collection Guide can be found in Appendix C
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 20
Overview for Educators and Evaluators
Practical Guide for Evaluators
Suggested
Due Date
To do (with explanations)
Forms*
 The Evaluator and Educator meet to determine the goals to
Self-Assessment
& Goal-Setting
Form
October 15
Self-Assessment
& Goal-Setting
Form
November 1
Unannounced
Observation
Form
November 30
st
(1 observation)
be included in the Educator Plan and to develop an
Educator Plan, using:

The goals the Educator has proposed in the SelfAssessment.

Evidence of Educator performance and impact on
1
student learning, growth and achievement based on
the Educator’s self-assessment and other sources that
Evaluator shares with the Educator.
 The Evaluator completes and shares the Educator Plan,
which includes:

At least one goal related to the improvement of
practice.

At least one goal related to the improvement of student
learning.

Actions the Educator must take to attain the goals
established in the Plan and benchmarks to assess
progress. Outlined actions can include but are not
limited to professional development, self-study,
coursework, as well as other supports for completing
these actions.
 For Educators without PTS, the Evaluator conducts the
following:

At least one announced observation during the
evaluation cycle.

At least one unannounced observation during the
school year.
Announced
Observation
Form
*All forms can be found in Appendix A, and the Evidence Collection Guide can be found in Appendix C
1
The process for determining the Educator’s impact on student learning, growth and achievement will be determined
and negotiated after ESE issues guidance on this matter
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 21
Overview for Educators and Evaluators
To do (with explanations)
Forms*
 For Educators with PTS, the Evaluator conducts the
Unannounced
Observation
Form
following:

At least one announced observation during the
evaluation cycle.

At least one unannounced observation during the
evaluation cycle for Educators whose overall rating is
needs improvement, proficient or exemplary.

At least one unannounced observation during the
evaluation cycle for Educators whose overall rating is
unsatisfactory must be observed according to the
Improvement Plan. 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 four unannounced observations.
For Improvement Plans of six months or fewer, there
must be no fewer than two unannounced observations.
 Evaluator compiles evidence of goal attainment, to be used
in formative assessments, which include:

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, which includes evidence collected
by the Educator and presented to the Evaluator
relating to fulfilling professional responsibilities and
family outreach and engagement.
 For all Educators not on two-year Plans, the Evaluator
conducts Formative Assessments to assess progress
towards attaining goals set forth in the Educator Plans,
performance on performance standards, or both.

While Formative Assessments are ongoing and can
occur at any time during the evaluation cycle, they
typically occur at least mid-cycle.

Copies of Formative Assessment Forms must be
signed by the Evaluator and delivered to the Educator.

Subsequent to the Formative Assessment, the
Evaluator may place the Educator on a different
Educator Plan.
Suggested
Due Date
November 30
st
(1 observation)
Announced
Observation
Form
Unannounced
Observation
Form
January 18
Announced
Observation
Form
Formative
Assessment
Form
February 1
*All forms can be found in Appendix A, and the Evidence Collection Guide can be found in Appendix C
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 22
Overview for Educators and Evaluators
To do (with explanations)
Forms*
 Evaluator compiles evidence of goal attainment, to be used
Unannounced
Observation
Form
in formative and summative evaluations, which include:

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, which includes evidence collected
by the Educator and presented to the Evaluator
relating to fulfilling professional responsibilities and
family outreach and engagement.
 For all Educators on the first year of their two-year SelfDirected Growth Plans, the Evaluator arrives at a rating on
progress towards attaining the goals set forth in the
Educator Plans, performance on performance stands, or
both.

Copies of Formative Evaluation Forms must be signed
by the Evaluator and delivered to the Educator.

Unless there is evidence of a significant change in
performance, the Educator will maintain the same
overall rating from the last summative evaluation.

The Educator and Evaluator may meet for
conference, if requested by either party.
their second year of their two-year plans, the Evaluator
completes Summative Evaluations to determine 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 attainment of the Educator Plan goals.
(All observations)
Announced
Observation
Form
Formative
Evaluation Form
June 1
Summative
Evaluation Form
June 1
(contractual)
Copies of Summative Evaluation Forms must be
signed by the Evaluator and delivered to the Educator.
 The Evaluator meets with Educators whose overall
Summative Evaluation ratings are Needs Improvement or
Unsatisfactory.

April 20
a
 For all Educators on one-year plans and for Educators on

Suggested
Due Date
June 1
(contractual)
The Evaluator may meet with Educators whose ratings
are Proficient or Exemplary, if requested.
*All forms can be found in Appendix A, and the Evidence Collection Guide can be found in Appendix C
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 23
Step 1: Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal
Overview
The first step of the Educator Evaluation cycle is self-assessment and goal proposal. The key actions are
for educators to analyze student data, reflect on their performance, and to propose a minimum of one
student learning goal and one professional practice goal individually and/or in teams.
This is a critical moment for educators to take ownership of the process. A guiding principle for SEEDS is
that evaluation should be done with educators, not to them. In the words of a Kindergarten teacher in the
Boston Public Schools, ―Teachers need to take ownership of this process in order for it to be most
meaningful.‖ Embracing the self-assessment process empowers educators to shape the conversation by
stating what they think their strengths are, the areas on which they want to focus, and what support they
need. An educator’s position is made more powerful when backed by specific evidence, clear alignment
with school and district priorities and initiatives, and strong use of team goals.
Time Frame
In the first year of implementation, self-assessment
should take place as early as possible in the school
year, leaving most of the year for educators to work
toward their goals. The time it takes to complete this
step might range from two to six weeks, depending
on the extent to which team or department goals are
included and how quickly those groups of educators
can meet to analyze student data and propose
collective goals.
In subsequent years of implementation, the selfassessment step should be informed by the
summative evaluation. Given a typical one or two year cycle, most summative evaluations will occur at
the end of a school year—therefore, self-assessment may start at the end of one year as educators
reflect on their performance and continue through the beginning of the next year as educators analyze
data for their new students.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 24
Step 1: Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal
Required Outcomes
To do
Primary
Owner
 The Educator completes and submits a self-
Educator
Self-Assessment
& Goal-Setting
Form
October 1
Educator
Self-Assessment
& Goal-Setting
Form
October 1
assessment to the Evaluator, which includes:

An analysis of evidence of student
learning, growth and achievement for
students
under
the
Educator’s
responsibility.

An assessment of practice against each
of the four Performance Standards of
effective practice using the district’s
rubric.
 The
Educator completes and submits
proposed goals* to the Evaluator, which
includes:

At least one goal directly related to
improving
the
Educator’s
own
professional practice.

At least one goal directed related to
improving student learning.
Forms
Suggested
Due Date
* Unless the Educator is in his/her first year of practice, Educators are encouraged to consider team goals
– for grade-level, subject-area, department teams, or other groups of Educators who share responsibility
for student learning and results.
Getting Started
The purpose of the section below is to help educators, evaluators, and school leadership teams get
started with Step 1: Self-Assessment and Goal Proposal. The educator being evaluated is responsible for
much of the action in this step. Educators’ ability to effectively engage in this step should be supported by
evaluators and school leadership teams through increasing school-wide ―readiness,‖ careful planning,
and the provision of key resources and tools.
Conditions for Readiness
 Clear understanding of school and district priorities and goals. When sitting down to selfassess, the amount of information to consider may feel overwhelming. It is critical that educators
prioritize within their analysis of data and self-assessment on performance rubrics. The school
leadership team and evaluators can support educators by establishing and communicating a
tightly focused vision of priorities and goals. When sharing school and district priorities and goals,
school leaders and evaluators may want to explicitly link them to the Standards and Indicators of
Effective Teaching Practice and to specific data sources that are priorities for analysis. For
example, knowledge of a school priority to increase parent engagement prompts educators to
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 25
Step 1: Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal
engage in more intensive reflection on Standard 3 (Family and Community Engagement).
Likewise, a school-wide goal of increasing reading comprehension scores may guide educators
to look more closely at the sources of reading comprehension data that are relevant to their
respective roles. Arming educators with this knowledge early on in the process empowers them to
dive into conversations about rubrics and student data with the confidence that they know where
and when to sharpen and intensify their focus.
 Knowledge of school and district initiatives. While many educators are likely to already have
knowledge of these initiatives—especially if school leadership has effectively communicated
school and district priorities and goals—new staff may not be aware of existing and planned
initiatives. In order to create coherence across the variety of initiatives that are being or will be
implemented, educators must know not only the scope but also the order of priority for
implementation. This knowledge will enable educators to connect the work that they already need
to do to support effective implementation of such initiatives with their individual or team goals. For
th
example, a team of 5 grade teachers who want to improve their skill in backward mapping for
unit design may choose to collaborate to develop unit plans for the curriculum frameworks.
 School-wide ability to analyze and interpret data. The ability to effectively analyze and draw
appropriate conclusions from data is likely to vary. Creating strong goals that are likely to
accelerate student learning is dependent on data analysis that considers patterns and trends
across groups of students, the variety of factors that contribute to performance (such as
attendance, social and emotional needs, or past interventions), growth, and early evidence of
struggle. While the school leadership team should provide formal professional development for
staff, there should also be opportunities for teams to support each other as they work to analyze
data together. Special education staff and professional support personnel such as counselors,
school psychologists, and school nurses have specialized knowledge to contribute that will
support educators during data analysis—it may be helpful to have them meet with teams or share
their insights during faculty meetings early in the year.
 Ability to develop and monitor SMART goals. Goal proposal is a key moment for educators to
take ownership of their own evaluations. If proposed goals lack ―SMART‖ qualities (Specific,
Measurable, Action-oriented, Rigorous and Realistic, and Tracked), they will be difficult to
implement and monitor. If the evaluator does not provide adequate support to the educator when
refining the goal, the Educator Plan is likely to be created based on a weak goal. Early
implementers of the new evaluation framework have found that ―smarter‖ goals readily translate
into an Educator Plan, while weaker goals are difficult to translate into a focused plan of action. If
planned activities are not well connected to the goal, and the goal lacks measurable and/or timely
benchmarks, it decreases the likelihood that the educator will be able to monitor progress, adjust
practice, and attain the goal. (See Appendix F: Setting SMART goals)
 Knowledge of planned professional development and available resources. As individuals
and teams prepare to propose goals, they should be aware of supports that are available through
the school and district. As many schools plan formal professional development opportunities far in
advance, it will benefit educators to know the timing and purpose of planned activities. Further,
educators will be able to propose stronger goals if they have a sense of what options are realistic
for support from the school, such as how much common planning time teams will have
throughout the year to work toward shared goals or whether they will have opportunities to
observe or be observed by peers. Organizing and sharing this information with the staff will also
support the school leadership team and evaluators in developing a cohesive plan for professional
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 26
Step 1: Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal
development and educator support as they move into the next phase of finalizing goals and
developing Educator Plans including planned activities. Considerations for Planning
 Ability to link the professional practice goal to the student learning goal. The professional
practice goals that Educators set should support the attainment of their student learning goals.
Professional practice goals should support student learning, and student learning goals should be
informed by professional practice. The linkage of these goals would ensure that the Educator is
aligning instructional practice to student achievement.
This section highlights key logistics and practical considerations for implementation that will help school
leadership teams and evaluators plan.

Early access to baseline data. The logistics of accessing data can prevent educators from
engaging in meaningful and thorough self-assessment early in the year. School leadership can
support educators by working to ensure that data is accessible early in the year, particularly for
new students. During conversations with the staff about evaluation in the opening weeks of
school, school leaders and evaluators may want to communicate how they want educators to
proceed with analyzing student data if, for example, they only have data for two-thirds of their
class, or if student schedules are not finalized yet. Finally, both individuals and teams need
access to data for the students under their responsibility—team data may need to be
disaggregated (or aggregated) for effective analysis.
 Communicating priorities, goals, initiatives, and planned professional development
opportunities and resources. Set the stage through faculty and/or team meetings in the opening
days and weeks of the school year (the typical start point for most evaluation cycles). Educators
should know the school priorities, goals, and planned professional development prior to being
asked to commence self-assessment and goal proposal. One principal in an early implementation
district, for example, collaborated with the school staff to identify specific Standards and Indicators
on which to self-assess, giving them clear direction with regard to how to focus their analysis
according to the school’s priorities and goals. While this does not mean that the other Standards
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 27
Step 1: Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal
and Indicators would be ignored over the course of the year, it tightened and intensified the vision
for school-wide improvement, helping to ensure educator and team alignment with school efforts.

Time for teams to collaborate. ―Self‖ assessment has a clear connotation of an individual
activity—so why are teams emphasized in this step, and what role should teams play in selfassessment and goal proposal?
Reflecting on one’s performance is, in most respects, a private exercise and should be honored
as such. There are important roles for teams to play in self-assessment, however, which will
strengthen and add meaning to the process.
1. Teams should work together over time to ―unpack the rubric,‖ engaging in discussion
around topics such as distinctions between performance levels, alignment between
performance standards and school goals, or the definitions of certain Indicators. Such
conversations serve to deepen the professional culture around improving practice and
contribute to a shared sense of educator empowerment and ownership of their
professional growth. School leadership should start the conversation with educators as
they share the performance rubric, engaging the faculty as a whole in discussions of the
rubrics and which Indicators or Elements might be a focus for the year.
2. Teams should analyze student data together to mutually strengthen and reinforce one
another’s skills and deepen their understanding of the data (Bernhardt, 2004).
3. Teams should propose shared goals to collectively pursue (discussed in more detail on
6
page 32 .
4. Team time should be used to explore ways in which members can contribute to one
another’s growth and provide feedback for improvement throughout the year.
For educators to have adequate opportunities to engage in this kind of activity, school leaders
should plan in advance to ensure that time is set aside for teams to meet in the opening days and
weeks of the school year.
Suggested Resources
In order to create coherence across existing or planned initiatives, align individual and team goals with
school and district goals and priorities, and promote collaboration and conversation, it is critical that
educators have clear and easy access to certain types of information. The “Suggested Resources”
6
Note that team goals may not be appropriate for all educators. For example, new teachers may be focusing on
induction goals, and struggling educators will have goals focusing on areas for improvement. Evaluators should also
be sensitive to issues that may arise, including confidentiality, if teams include an individual with an Educator Plan
that is less than a year (which would indicate a previous rating of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory). For
nd
example, a 2 grade team may include three teachers on two-year Self-Directed Growth Plans; one teacher on a
one-year Directed Growth Plan; and one teacher on an Improvement Plan. In that scenario, the evaluator should
nd
consider whether it is appropriate for all of the 2 grade teachers to participate in a team goal. All Improvement Plan
goals will have to target the areas in urgent need of improvement, whereas the teacher on the Directed Growth Plan
may be able to more easily tackle both the team goal and individual goals for improvement. If a shared goal is
proposed by that team, it should include benchmarks that will be available prior to both the formative assessment and
the summative evaluation for the teacher on the Improvement Plan and the teacher on the Directed Growth Plan.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 28
Step 1: Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal
section lists several concrete resources that will support educators to engage in self-assessment and goal
proposal thoughtfully and effectively.

Copies of district and school improvement plans and/or goals

Dates and intended outcomes of planned professional development opportunities

Specific information on new initiatives that are being implemented or continued from previous
years, such as the implementation of a new curriculum

Growth and achievement data for past and current or incoming students

Performance rubric on which educators will self-assess

Copy of collective bargaining agreement (Appendix E) and/or other evaluation requirements
Tools & Forms
The following tools and forms should be used to support implementation:

Teacher Rubric (Appendix B)

Self-Assessment and Goal Setting Form (Appendix A)
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 29
Step 1: Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal
Recommended Actions for Educators and Evaluators
Recommended Action
Educator
(Individual)
Educator
(Team)
Evaluator
Notes

Clear communication will strengthen
connection and coherence, enabling
educators to propose tightly aligned goals
and realistic supports

Exact dates are not regulated, but it is
recommended that all self-assessments
and goal proposals are completed by
October 1


Teams may be organized around
department, grade level, or students for
whom the team shares responsibility


To save time, evaluators may want to
participate in team discussion and goal
development
Communicate school and
district priorities and goals,
existing and planned initiatives,
planned professional
development, and other
opportunities for support
Communicate expectations for
completion of self-assessment
Identify teams who will
collaborate to ―unpack the
rubric,‖ analyze student
learning, and propose goals
Assemble and review student
learning data for students
currently under the responsibility
of the team or educator

Identify student strengths and
areas to target for growth


Review performance standards
on the Teacher Rubric


Identify professional practices
that teams need to engage in to
attain student learning goals
Identify educator performance
areas of strength and areas for
growth




The Teacher Rubric includes 4 Standards
and 16 Indicators of Effective Teaching
Team professional practice goals should
be aligned with team student learning
goals where they exist as well as
performance standards on rubrics
Educators may choose to rate
themselves on the rubric but are not
required to submit ratings; they are only
required to provide an assessment of
practice against Performance Standards
(Preferably by October 1)
Propose a minimum of one
student learning goal and one
professional practice goals
Educators will analyze trends and
patterns in data for past students while
reflecting on performance; goals are for
current students

Goals may be individual and/or at the
team level
(Preferably by October 1)
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 30
Step 1: Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal
Common Questions on Goal Proposal
The section below reflects questions frequently raised by early implementers of the regulations.

Why are team goals a priority?
The new regulations require that both educators and evaluators consider team goals; goals
can be individual, team, or a combination of both. Setting grade level, department, or other
team goals—both for student learning and professional practice—promotes alignment and
coherence, focuses effort, and fosters professional collaboration and cooperation, thus
enhancing opportunities for professional growth. Team goals also ease the evaluator’s
burden of assessing and supporting a high volume of individual educators’ goals. Team
goals can also propose a common outcome and measure, but identify differentiated
responsibilities and actions for members.

What’s the difference between a student learning goal and a professional practice goal?
The new educator evaluation framework prioritizes both student learning and educator
professional growth; therefore, the regulations require a minimum of at least one student
learning goal and one professional practice goal. In reality, professional practice is typically
closely entwined with student learning which can make it difficult to distinguish between
these two different kinds of goals.
Student learning goals are driven by the needs of the students for whom an educator or
team has responsibility. On the first day of school, a given classroom of students has a
th
range of learning needs. For example, 40% of the students in a 6 grade class may be
reading three years below grade level. Any teacher that steps into that classroom faces the
same array of student learning needs. Student data shapes and informs student learning
goals.
Professional practice goals are distinguished in two primary ways: first, the manner in
which a teacher is able to support student progress toward learning goals may vary by
teacher. A novice teacher is likely to have a different professional focus than a veteran
th
teacher in support of improving the 6 grade students’ reading skills. Second, professional
practice goals should support the learning of the teacher—an opportunity to deepen or
acquire a skill or knowledge of content, pedagogy, or professional leadership, for example.
Individual teacher practice and learning shapes and informs professional practice goals.

My students have such different needs – how do I pick just one or two goals to focus on?
Given the complex array of needs of individual students—let alone classrooms, grades, or
a whole school—it is critical that educators prioritize when proposing goals. As noted
earlier, one source of guidance is district and schools goals and priorities. Another source
of guidance is the analysis of educator performance: an educator’s strengths and areas for
growth can also inform the selection of student learning goals. For example, a middle
school special education teacher may have a history of success in improving the reading
comprehension of her students, but may be challenged by students who are increasingly
struggling with non-fiction writing. Reading comprehension and writing skills are both
important student needs, but in this case, it would make more sense to propose a goal on
non-fiction writing to ensure the educator’s focus and the evaluator’s support in this area.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 31
Step 1: Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal
Key Components to Establishing and Sustaining Effective Teacher
Teams
Effective collaboration by teacher teams can have a significant impact on improved teaching and
learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Saunders et al., 2009). However, simply having time to
collaborate does not necessarily result in student achievement gains; teacher teams that
experience actual achievement gains as a result of their work are those that focus almost entirely
on teaching and learning (Vescio, et al., 2008). Building the conditions to sustain and support
effective teacher teams should be a priority for all school leadership. According to findings from a 5year study of teacher teams in Title 1 schools, there are five key components for establishing and
sustaining effective teacher teams.
Teams that have common instructional responsibilities. When teachers have shared
responsibility for students or have common instructional responsibilities—either within a grade
or content area—they are able to collaborate more effectively around shared student learning
problems and work to identify instructional solutions that draw from their collective expertise.
Stable settings dedicated to instructional collaboration. The biggest challenge to effective
teacher teams is not lack of motivation or a desire to work together, but rather the inability to
secure stable, protected time on a regular basis to get together and focus on student learning.
Research indicates that teacher teams need at least 2 to 3 hours every month to sustain
rigorous, focused collaboration around student learning. Establishing, protecting, and sustaining
regular times to meet is critical for effective teacher collaboration (Gallimore et al., 2009).
Perseverance. Teacher teams are only as effective as their students. The best teacher teams
are those that stick with a goal until their students meet key performance indicators related to
that goal. Once teachers see first-hand the product of their efforts, they are less likely to
assume ―I planned and taught the lesson, but they didn’t get it,‖ and more likely to adopt the
assumption, ―you haven’t taught until they’ve learned‖ (Gallimore et al., 2009).
Protocols that guide—but do not prescribe—collaboration. Not only do protocols help
guide collaboration, they create recurring opportunities for every teacher to contribute their
knowledge, experience, and creativity.
Trained peer facilitators. Having a designated, trained peer facilitator helps teams stay
focused, work through protocols, and stick to a problem or challenge until it is solved. The
presence of a peer facilitator also distributes leadership more effectively by giving teachers
opportunities to exercise instructional leadership, and by freeing up instructional coaches and
content experts to focus their assistance on content rather than act as team leaders.
(McDougall et al., 2007).
Together, these five components of establishing effective teacher teams build a foundation for
focused, productive collaboration around instruction driven by real improvements to student
achievement.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 32
Step 2: Goal Setting & Plan Development
Overview
The second step of the evaluation cycle for continuous improvement is goal setting and plan
development. The key actions are for educators to share their self-assessments and proposed goals with
evaluators; for evaluators to work with teams and individuals to refine proposed goals as needed; and for
educators and evaluators to develop Educator Plans that identify activities and supports that will drive
improvement and progress toward goal attainment.
Each Educator Plan should: create a clear path for action that will support the educator’s and/or team’s
professional growth and improvement; align with school and district goals; and leverage existing
professional development and expertise from within the school to ensure access to timely support and
feedback for improvement. Even with well-written individual Educator Plans, however, successful
implementation relies on a strong school-wide plan for professional development.
Schools that effectively develop and support Educator Plans will demonstrate that school leadership is
committed to giving educators the agreed-upon supports. Collectively, the Educator Plans will shape the
professional development and other supports that empower educators to successfully work toward goals
that they have identified and prioritized, while continuing to advance school-wide performance.
There are four types of Educator Plan. The type, duration, and developer of each Plan are established
according to status and performance as follows:

Developing Educator Plan (developed by the educator and the evaluator)
This plan is for an administrator with less than three years of experience in a district; an educator
without Professional Teacher Status (PTS); or an educator in a new assignment (at the discretion
of the evaluator). This plan is for one school year or less.

Self-Directed Growth Plan (developed by the educator)
This plan is for an ―experienced‖ educator (defined as an administrator with more than three
years in an administrative position in the school district or a teacher with Professional Teacher
Status) with an Exemplary or Proficient performance rating on the previous summative
evaluation. When the Rating of Impact on Student Learning is implemented (beginning in 201314), educators with a Moderate or High Rating of Impact will be on a two-year plan; educators
with a Low Impact Rating will be on a one-year plan.

Directed Growth Plan (developed by the educator and the evaluator)
This plan is for an experienced educator rated as Needs Improvement on the previous summative
evaluation. This plan is for one school year or less.

Improvement Plan (developed by the evaluator )
This plan is for an experienced educator rated as Unsatisfactory on the previous summative
evaluation. This plan is for no less than 30 school days and no longer than one school year.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 33
Step 2: Goal Setting & Plan Development
Time Frame
Goal refinement and plan development should take
place early in the year to prepare educators for
engaging in the actions and activities to which they
have committed. Completing the Educator Plan early
in the year will also allow educators to maximize the
use of supports identified in the plan. A good rule of
thumb is to finalize all Educator Plans by mid- to late
October. Finally, note that observations and evidence
collection do not rely on the completion of Educator
Plans and may begin concurrent with this step,
although educators and evaluators will have a clearer
focus once the Plan is completed.
Required Outcomes
To do
 The Evaluator and Educator meet to determine the
goals to be included in the Educator Plan and to
develop an Educator Plan, using:

The goals the Educator has proposed in the
Self-Assessment.

Evidence of Educator performance and impact
7
on student learning, growth and achievement
based on the Educator’s self-assessment and
other sources that Evaluator shares with the
Educator.
 The Evaluator completes and shares the Educator
Plan, which includes:

At least one goal related to the improvement of
practice.

At least one goal related to the improvement of
student learning.

Actions the Educator must take to attain the
goals established in the Plan and benchmarks
to assess progress. Outlined actions can
include but are not limited to professional
development, self-study, coursework, as well
as other supports for completing these
actions.
Primary
Owner
Forms
Suggested
Due Date
Educator
&
Evaluator
SelfAssessment &
Goal-Setting
Form
October 15
Evaluator
SelfAssessment &
Goal-Setting
Form
November 1
7
The process for determining the Educator’s impact on student learning, growth and achievement will be determined
and negotiated after ESE issues guidance on this matter
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 34
Step 2: Goal Setting & Plan Development
Getting Started
The purpose of the section below is to help educators, evaluators, and school leadership teams get
started with the development of Educator Plans, including the refinement of goals and identification of
educator action steps and supports and resources the school will provide.
The responsibility for developing Educator Plans is typically shared between educators and evaluators.
School leadership and evaluators play a unique role, however, in strategic planning for support.
Conditions for Readiness
This section describes school-wide knowledge, capacity, and information that will increase the readiness
of educators and evaluators to effectively implement this step. If schools find that these conditions do not
exist, that should not delay implementation. However, strengthening these underlying conditions will
increase the likelihood of success. Leadership may need to adjust their communication and professional
development strategies and/or add tasks to their implementation plan.
 Knowledge of needed support. Thoughtful self-assessment should give educators a clear idea
of their strengths and areas in which they want to grow. This phase provides an opportunity for
educators to articulate the supports and resources that will accelerate their professional growth
and offer opportunities for feedback for improvement. In addition to formal professional
development, team conversation during the self-assessment step may have sparked valuable
insights for how the various strengths of team members can be leveraged to provide peer
mentoring, coaching, or modeling in support of goal attainment and educator growth. This
knowledge will prepare educators on a Self-Directed Growth Plan to individually develop their
Educator Plan; prepare educators on a Directed Growth Plan or Developing Educator Plan to
work with their evaluator to jointly develop their Educator Plan; and prepare educators on an
Improvement Plan to articulate the supports they need to their evaluator as the evaluator
develops the Educator Plan.
 Knowledge of available support. Just as educators must know what they need, evaluators must
know what they can give. Both evaluators and educators being evaluated will benefit from a clear
understanding of what supports are available and realistic. Fiscal and logistical constraints can
impede the implementation of seemingly strong Educator Plans and goals. For example, how
much common planning time will be available for teams collaborating on unit design? Will
individuals have opportunities to observe their peers—and if so, with what frequency? Identifying
and communicating the parameters around available support will enable all parties to plan more
strategically. As Educator Plans are developed, alignment with district and school priorities and
goals continues to be critical; schools need to maintain their focus on goals and activities that
hold the greatest promise for advancing the school’s stated priorities.
 Clearly defined evaluation team. The district may make different choices regarding the use of
school leadership, and district support in the evaluation process. If there is more than one
evaluator at a school, however, the members of the evaluation team must have a common
understanding of who will be contributing and what their roles are. Further, educators should
know who their primary evaluator is, who else will be contributing, and in what capacity.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 35
Step 2: Goal Setting & Plan Development
Considerations for Planning
This section highlights key logistics and practical considerations for implementation that will help school
leadership teams and evaluators plan.

System for developing a cohesive plan of sustainable and feasible support. School
leadership must have a system in place for collecting, organizing, and reviewing selfassessments and proposed goals as they are submitted to ensure that they can develop a
cohesive plan for supporting educators that is realistic and ―doable.‖ School leaders and
evaluators should consider the format for submission—does the school or district have a
technology platform that can be leveraged for easily reviewing across all of the proposed goals,
or are educators submitting on paper? Who should be part of the process, such as department
heads or grade level leads? What confidentiality issues should be considered at this stage?
Taking the time to identify answers to these questions and outline a system in advance of
beginning to develop Educator Plans will enable the school to move more efficiently through this
process and increase the likeliness of a successful implementation.

Communication across evaluation team. Evaluators within a school (or across a district if each
school has only one evaluator) should consider how they will communicate during this process. It
is a critical time for evaluators to sharpen their skills at supporting staff to set SMART goals and
to develop a sound plan of committed support to educators. In addition, patterns and trends in the
supports that educators identify as high-priority to their growth is a valuable source of information
to school and district leadership as they plan professional development opportunities and
strategies. Research has found that when professional development opportunities are aligned
with teacher goals, professional development is more effective at changing teacher practice
(Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon & Birman, 2002; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi & Gallagher,
2007).

Meeting with teams and individuals. Evaluators should set aside time to meet with teams prior
to meeting with individual educators to the extent possible. These meetings are an opportunity to
finalize goals and agree upon planned activities and supports for multiple educators. If the
majority of educators have team goals, this may eliminate the need to have individual
conferences with many educators, unless the educator or evaluator requests an individual
conference.

Customizing for differences in roles and responsibilities. This is a key moment for
considering distinctions in the roles and responsibilities of educators. While the vast majority of
educators are likely to be evaluated against the same Performance Rubric, the emphasis on and
prioritization of Indicators and elements can and should be customized. Consider, for example,
8
the Expectations Indicator : ―Plans and implements lessons that set clear and high expectations
and make knowledge accessible for all students.‖ Making knowledge accessible is critical for
educators who work with students who are English language learners (ELLs) or have disabilities
(or are ELLs with disabilities). Although most educators have responsibility for at least some ELLs
or special education students, this Indicator should be more heavily emphasized for educators
who, for example, primarily teach students with IEPs, especially those whose disabilities require
modifications of curriculum, instruction, or learning outcomes.
8
Indicator D within Standard II, Teaching All Students from the Standards and Indicators for Effective Teaching
Practice as defined in 603 CMR 35.03
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 36
Step 2: Goal Setting & Plan Development
Suggested Resources
The “Suggested Resources” section lists several concrete resources that will support educators and
evaluators develop strong Educator Plans.

Copies of district and school improvement plans and/or goals

Dates and intended outcomes of planned professional development opportunities

Specific information on new initiatives that are being implemented or continued from previous
years, such as the implementation of a new curriculum

Copy of collective bargaining agreement (Appendix E) and/or other evaluation requirements

Completed self-assessment, including proposed goals

Rubric Standards and Indicators
Tools & Forms
The following tools and forms should be used to support implementation:

Teacher Rubric (Appendix B)

SMART Goal Setting Guide (Appendix F)

Self-Assessment and Goal Setting Form (Appendix A)
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 37
Step 2: Goal Setting & Plan Development
Recommended Actions for Educators and Evaluators
Recommended Action
Review professional
development that is already
planned for the school year
Educator
(Individual)

Educator
(Team)

Evaluator schedules time
with teams and educators
to review self-assessments
and refine goals
Evaluator meets with teams
and individual educators to
review and finalize
proposed goals


Evaluator
Notes

Depending on proposed goals,
educators may incorporate preplanned professional
development into Educator Plan

Evaluator may want to meet with
teams prior to individuals, as
individuals on a team will have a
shared goal

Team and individual goals shall
be consistent with school and
district goals, according to the
regulations

Evaluators may want to develop
a system for tracking all of the
support and resources that they
agree to offer educators to
ensure capacity

Evaluator retains final authority
over goals to be included on
Educator Plans
(Preferably by October 15)
Evaluator and educators
work together to plan
activities that will support
attainment of goals

Record final goals and
actions the educator must
take to attain these goals

(Preferably by November 1)
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 38
Step 2: Goal Setting & Plan Development
Suggestions for Refining Goals and Developing Plans

Teams and/or individual educators and evaluators should jointly review available data from
student performance measures and other relevant sources when finalizing goals. The
conversation about the data during the goal setting process should serve as an opportunity to
develop a shared understanding between educator and evaluator that the goal is:
o
linked directly to the school’s priorities;
o
rigorous but realistic; and
o
clearly measurable by sources of evidence that are either currently being collected or
have plans to be collected that year.

Conversations between educator and evaluator about the goals and planned activities for the
year should identify how sources of evidence (to determine both progress toward meeting the
goals and ratings of performance against the standards) will be collected and by whom. This
will serve as an opportunity to clarify on the front-end if a plan is in place to sufficiently collect
all the evidence necessary. If it appears that there are gaps in the evidence being collected, it is
important to work together to determine how the educator and evaluator can develop a clear
plan to share the work of collecting evidence.

Assessing evidence of progress toward goals requires measurement methods that are logically
linked to action steps. These measures may be distinct from student assessments as they will
be focused on evidence of educator actions. Boston Public Schools have suggested the
following strategies for measuring progress towards goals:

o
Using a specified rubric to evaluate an agreed-upon action, such as a lesson plan.
o
An agreed-upon method for recording the frequency of a particular teacher practice
or student behavior (i.e., visibly displaying daily objectives or homework completion).
o
Examples of documents the educator has agreed to create or post.
o
An agreed-upon method for recording the frequency of a desired student behavior.
o
Examples of documents that show a teacher has engaged in a particular practice
(i.e., communications with parents).
While a minimum of two individual and/or teams goals are required (one student learning and
one professional practice), the total number of goals may depend on the teams and
departments of which the educator is a member, the professional judgment of the educator, and
guidance from the evaluator. In addition to considering the school and district’s priorities,
capacity for support, and existing or planned initiatives that require educator effort to
implement, evaluators should also consider past performance and the extent to which
educators need customized or intensive support to accelerate growth.
For further guidance on setting SMART goals, see Appendix
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 39
Step 2: Goal Setting & Plan Development
Evaluating Educators Serving in Multiple Roles
Districts may elect, subject to their bargaining obligations, how they will choose to evaluate educators
who serve in multiple roles. However, simplicity and commonsense are useful guideposts when
creating sustainable evaluation systems. In many instances it would be a burden to both the educator
and the district to conduct separate evaluations for each role that an educator might have in a school
or district. Rather than attempt to do so, ESE suggests that the District and the Association/Union
agree on the educator's primary role based on a review of the educator's course load and other
assignments. Where a primary role is not suggested by such an analysis, the parties could designate
a primary role, subject to confirmation by the evaluator's supervisor. Notwithstanding, districts may
evaluate educators for each of their multiple roles if they so choose, subject to their collective
bargaining agreements.
Whichever approach the district adopts, the role-appropriate standards, indicators, rubrics, and
student performance measures to be used in evaluating the educator should be discussed as part of
the goal-setting and plan development component in the educator evaluation cycle, so expectations
are clear and agreed upon before evaluation begins.
Example
A large high school has an educator serving in the supervisor/director role as chair of
a math department of five teachers. As part of her workload, the educator also
teaches two sections of math. The evaluator and educator determine her evaluation
will focus on her supervisory, PD and team development responsibilities, and
designate her department chair duties as her primary role for the purpose of
evaluation. Conversely, an educator serving in the supervisor/director role in a small
high school with just two math teachers (including the educator) might have a more
extensive teaching load. The evaluator and educator conclude that her evaluation will
focus on her teaching responsibilities, not her supervisory duties.
Alternately, subject to the requirements of the evaluation system the district adopts,
the parties may determine that it is more appropriate to evaluate the educator in both
her roles (supervisory and teaching). However, as noted above, this will likely create
an added burden for both the evaluator and educator, given the need for multiple
ratings on practice and impact on student learning when implemented in 2013-14.
The parties could create a hybrid rubric including Standards, Indicators, Elements,
and/or descriptors from both the teacher rubric and the administrator rubric
appropriate to the responsibilities of the educator. Should this approach be taken, the
parties are advised not to increase the number of elements, but rather to select those
indicators and elements that best apply to the educators role and responsibilities.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 40
Step 3: Implementation of the Plan
Overview
The third step of the evaluation cycle is implementing the Plan: responsibility for this step is divided
between educators and evaluators. For the duration of their cycle, educators will pursue the attainment of
the goals identified in the Educator Plan and collect evidence on, at minimum, their fulfillment of
professional responsibilities and engagement with families. Evaluators will provide educators with
feedback for improvement, ensure timely access to planned supports, and collect evidence on educator
performance and progress toward goals through multiple sources, including unannounced observations.
The Educator Plan provides a roadmap for dialogue, collaboration, and action: educators and teams use
their Educator Plans as a roadmap for improvement, completing the action steps in quest of progress
toward professional practice and student learning goals; evaluators use Educator Plans to drive
appropriate and timely support for educators and teams. Collectively and individually, educators and
evaluators will continue to use rubrics and student data to develop a shared understanding of effective
practice, guide ongoing reflection, monitor progress toward goals, and drive collection of evidence.
Engaging in frank conversation about what good practices looks like can be culturally and logistically
challenging in schools: it requires time, professionalism, and an environment of trust that places student
needs at the center of decision-making and dialogue. This conversation, however, is critical. It is the
lynchpin of implementation that gives meaning to evaluations, transforming them into a valued source of
support. While there is always too little time to accomplish everything that schools want and need to do,
evaluation will continue to be superficial and ritualistic unless school leadership, evaluators, teams, and
individual educators prioritize and protect time for the conversation and collaboration that is at the heart of
continuous learning.
Time Frame
Step 3, the Implementation of the Educator Plan,
begins as soon as Educator Plans are finalized and
continues until the end of the cycle and the summative
evaluation occurs. Certain components, however, do
not depend on finalized goals or completed Plans:
collection of evidence, including observations, can
and should begin as soon as school commences, as
educators and evaluators will need adequate time to
collect evidence for Standards and Indicators. For
example, events welcoming families and students
back to school often occur in the opening days or
weeks of school and provide valuable demonstrations
of educator engagement with families.
Some actions identified in Educator Plans may in fact take place prior to goal setting, as goals may
connect to participation in pre-planned professional development—especially if alignment between
Educator Plans and school goals and priorities is strong. Once the Educator Plan is complete, evaluators
can conduct observations in classrooms and other work environments, review artifacts, and analyze
student data with a sharpened focus on goals and high-priority areas of educator performance.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 41
Step 3: Implementation of the Plan
Required Outcomes
To do
 Both the Educator and Evaluator compile
evidence of goal attainment, to be used in
formative assessments and evaluations and
summative evaluations, which include:

Multiple measures of student
1
growth, and achievement ;

Judgments based on observations and
artifacts of professional practice, including
unannounced observations of practice of any
duration; and

Primary
Owner
Forms
Educator
&
Evaluator
Unannounced
Observation
Form
Announced
Observation
Form

2
Additional
evidence ,
which
includes
evidence collected by the Educator and
presented to the Evaluator relating to fulfilling
professional responsibilities and family
outreach and engagement.
Evaluator
At least one announced observation during
the evaluation cycle.
the following:

At least one announced observation during
the evaluation cycle.

At least one unannounced observation during
the evaluation cycle for Educators whose
overall rating is needs improvement,
proficient or exemplary.

At least one unannounced observation during
the evaluation cycle for Educators whose
overall rating is unsatisfactory must be
observed according to the Improvement
Plan. The number and frequency of the
formative and
summative
evaluations
Unannounced
Observation
Form
 November 30:
st
1 observation
 April 20: all
observations
Announced
Observation
Form
At least one unannounced observation during
the school year.
 For Educators with PTS, the Evaluator conducts
formative
assessments
Evidence
Collection
Guide
conducts the following:

 January 18: for
 April 20: for
learning,
 For Educators without PTS, the Evaluator
Suggested
Due Date
Evaluator
Unannounced
Observation
Form
 November 30:
st
1 observation
 April 20: all
observations
Announced
Observation
Form
1
The use of multiple measures will be in effect beginning in 2013-2014, with guidance to follow.
This additional evidence noted above will incorporate staff feedback (with respect to Administrators) and student
feedback beginning in 2013-14, with guidance to follow
2
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 42
Step 3: Implementation of the Plan
observations shall be determined by the
Evaluator, but in no case, for improvement
plans of one year, shall there be fewer than
four
unannounced
observations.
For
Improvement Plans of six months or fewer,
there must be no fewer than two
unannounced observations.
Observation Protocol
Decision areas
Announced
Unannounced
Number of observations
 Minimum of 1 per cycle
 Minimum of 1 per school year*
Observation length
 Minimum of 30 minutes
 Minimum of 10 minutes
Pre-conference
 Required
 None
Report documentation
 Observation report documented within 10 school days
Post-conference
 Required
 Required only if:
 Teacher receives a Needs

Improvement or Unsatisfactory
rating on any standard
Requested by either the Educator
or Evaluator
*Exceptions apply for educators on Improvement Plans. See next section ―Improvement Plan‖ for more information
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 43
Step 3: Implementation of the Plan
Improvement Plan
An Improvement Plan will be assigned to Educators with PTS whose overall rating is unsatisfactory. The
duration of the Improvement Plan can be no fewer than 30 school days and no more than one school
year.
The Improvement Plan process is outlined below:
Process
Timeline
 The Evaluator notifies the Educator of being placed on an Improvement Plan
 The Evaluator schedules a meeting with the Educator to discuss the
Improvement Plan

The Educator may request that a representative of the Springfield
Education
Association attend the meeting(s).
 The Educator signs the Plan, indicating that the Educator received the Plan in
a timely fashion
Within 10 school
days of
notification
Within 5 school
days of receipt
 A copy of the signed Plan is provided to the Educator
 The Evaluator and the Educator implement the plan:
 For Improvement Plans of one year, there will be no fewer than four
unannounced observations

For Improvement Plans of six months or fewer, there will be no fewer than
two unannounced observations
 The Evaluator makes a decision on the Educator’s status at the conclusion of
the Improvement Plan. One of five decisions will be made:

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

If the Evaluator determines that the Educator is making substantial progress
toward proficiency, the Evaluator shall place the Educator on a Directed
Growth Plan

If the Evaluator determines that the Educator is making some but not
sufficient progress toward proficiency, the Evaluator shall extend the
Educator’s Improvement such that the total Improvement Plan duration
does not exceed one school year

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

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
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
No later than
June 1
Page 44
Step 3: Implementation of the Plan
Getting Started
The purpose of the section below is to help educators, evaluators, and school leadership teams begin to
implement Educator Plans. The responsibility for implementing the Plans is shared between educators
and evaluators.
Conditions for Readiness
This section describes school-wide knowledge, capacity, and information that will increase the readiness
of educators and evaluators to effectively implement this step. If schools find that these conditions do not
exist, that should not delay implementation. However, strengthening these underlying conditions will
increase the likeliness of success. Leadership may need to adjust their communication and professional
development strategies and/or add tasks to their implementation plan.
 Evaluator training on use of rubric. The performance rubric will drive collection of evidence,
analysis of performance, and feedback for improvement. Evaluators should have formal training
on using a rubric to evaluate performance (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007). For example, they should
be aware of common evaluator biases such as the tendency to be a ―hard‖ (or ―easy‖) grader or
an overemphasis on particular knowledge and skills that could influence the rest of an evaluation.
 Clear expectations regarding valuable evidence. Establishing a clear and shared
understanding between educator and evaluator of what constitutes solid evidence that the
educator is achieving their student learning and professional practice goals and meeting the
3
Standards for effective practice is essential. An Evidence Collection Guide that lists potential
artifacts identified as evidence has been developed and can be found in Appendix C. Educators
should be mindful and selective in collecting the products of their own and their students’ work in
an organized collection of their impact.
 System for collecting and organizing evidence. Both educators and evaluators will benefit
from setting up an easy system for compiling evidence in advance of implementation. Some
educators may feel more comfortable putting together something like a traditional ―evidence
binder‖ with examples of both their work and that of their students, evidence of fulfillment of
professional responsibilities, and evidence of outreach to and engagement with families. Other
educators may choose to utilize available technology to compile evidence. Evaluators should be
clear about their expectations if there are specific requirements for how evidence is to be
compiled and presented.
Evaluators have a more complex task in that they must collect, organize, and review evidence
across multiple educators. SPS will provide technological solutions to aid this process.
Considerations for Planning
This section highlights key logistics and practical considerations for implementation that will help school
leadership teams and evaluators plan.
3
603 CMR 35.07(1)(c) notes that educators’ collection of evidence should include: ―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‖ and ―Evidence
of active outreach to and ongoing engagement with families.‖
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 45
Step 3: Implementation of the Plan

Plan for providing support, feedback, evidence, and training evaluators. Evaluators and
school leadership should develop a clear plan of action for implementation, which may include:
1. A systematic plan for tracking and ensuring educator access to support and resources.
For Educator Plans to be effectively implemented, schools must ensure that educators
are receiving the supports identified in the Plans. This may be formally accomplished
through sources such as logs of and attendance sheets for professional development, or
informally accomplished through sources such as regularly scheduled check-ins with
teams or individuals (which could be done via email or in person).
2. A clear plan for how educators will receive ongoing feedback for improvement.
Feedback may be based on sources that include: observations of practice and
performance in or out of the classroom; review of student or teacher work such as unit
and lesson plans, and measures of student learning; and student or staff feedback when
it is incorporated beginning in 2013-14. School leadership and planning teams should
consider the full range of resources that are available for providing feedback to educators,
including evaluators, team members, mentors, coaches, specialists, department heads,
district staff, and other teacher leaders.
3. A list of potential sources of evidence.
Evaluators should plan to take advantage of opportunities to collect evidence through
certain events or meetings, such as homework workshops for parents or team analysis of
benchmark data. Developing a list of dates, times, and the purpose of such opportunities
will assist evaluators in creating a comprehensive but manageable plan for evidence
collection. In crafting this list, evaluators should also consider what artifacts are readily
available and already collected, such as a log of parent interactions. Creating this list will
also reveal the types of evidence that are not currently being collected or tracked by
educators or the school.
4. A plan to support calibration across evaluators.
Within both schools and districts, calibration across evaluators is critical. As school
leadership plans implementation, they must consider the time, professional development,
and support that evaluators will need to develop a shared understanding of effective
practice for consistent use of rubrics to evaluate performance. Much like educators teams
early in the year, evaluators should continue to discuss topics such as distinctions
between performance levels, alignment between performance standards and school
goals, or the definitions of certain indicators. It will benefit teams of evaluators to conduct
some observations or review of artifacts together. While districts may take the lead in
providing support to evaluators, school leadership should ensure that all evaluators at
their school or evaluating educators at their school have time to engage in professional
conversation about what good practice looks like.

Sharing of evidence. Evidence must be shared bi-directionally, as both educators and
evaluators have responsibility for compiling data points on educator performance: evaluators
should engage in a transparent process of evidence collection, ensuring that educators have full
access. If there is more than one evaluator contributing to an educator’s evaluation, school
leadership should also consider how the evaluators can appropriately and efficiently share
information as needed, with full respect for confidentiality. Finally, educators need to know when
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 46
Step 3: Implementation of the Plan
they are expected to present evidence to evaluators. This could be a few weeks or days prior to
the point of formative review or summative evaluation, or could be presented during a formative
or summative conference. Clearly communicating the expectations for how evidence will be
shared, by whom, and when will assist all parties to effectively compile and organize evidence.

Strategic collection of evidence. Collecting evidence can become an end in itself and place an
entirely impractical burden on evaluator and educator alike. The collection must be seen as an
opportunity to select a sample of artifacts and other data that fairly represents performance and
impact. It is not intended to be a record of all that the educator has done in a year. It needs to be
focused on the practice and student learning goals, high priority standards and indicators, and the
critical school priorities not addressed by the practice and student learning goals. To that end,
faculty and team time should be devoted periodically to showcasing examples of well-chosen
samples and their thoughtful analysis of impact. For example, for the family engagement
standard, educators could agree that a roster of attendees at ―back to school‖ night reveals little
about practice, nor does it help advance important school goals. Instead, educators might be
asked to share the feedback they solicited from attendees or the steps they took to reach out to
those who did not attend.
Evaluators should also leverage existing opportunities for collecting evidence and providing
feedback. Coordinating the activities required for successful implementation of Educator Plans
with existing schedules for interim assessments, team data meetings, short unannounced
classroom visits by the principal/evaluator, and other existing activities to track improvements will
maximize educators’ time and enhance the coherence and impact of everyone’s effort.

Strategic use of team and faculty meetings. Using a portion of faculty meetings to share trends
and patterns in observation and other data can serve multiple purposes. It can advance school
goals, provide meaningful feedback to staff about collective progress on important goals, and set
the stage and context for significant individual feedback. For example, suppose one of the
school’s instructional improvement goals is to increase the proportion of higher level questioning.
The principal can report at a faculty meeting on the progress being made on that goal based on
trends and patterns in observation data from fall observations compared to observations
conducted in winter. The principal/evaluator can then follow up the general feedback with
individual teachers whose practice reveals that they are ―outliers‖—either particularly strong or
underdeveloped in terms of effective questioning.
All schools are seeking to build professional cultures in which educators share a common vision
of what effective practice looks like and collaborate with one another to achieve it throughout the
school. Team and full faculty discussions of the rubrics can help develop that culture—as long as
the discussions focus on high priority indicators and elements—and the evidence that is most
likely to provide useful feedback to assess the team’s current performance level with respect to
that element. Similarly, team monitoring of progress toward its goals offers another opportunity to
build common vision of effective practice.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 47
Step 3: Implementation of the Plan
Suggested Resources
The “Suggested Resources” section lists several concrete resources that will support educators’ and
evaluators’ implementation of Educator Plans.

Copy of collective bargaining agreement (Appendix E)

Copies of school and district improvement plans and/or goals

Rubrics

Copies of Educator Plans

Tools for tracking professional development activities and attendance

Tools for organizing data collection

Completed Self-Assessment & Goal Setting Form, which includes the Educator Plan
Tools & Forms
The following tools and forms should be used to support implementation:

Teacher Rubric (Appendix B)

Unannounced Observation Form (Appendix A)

Announced Observation Form (Appendix A)
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 48
Step 3: Implementation of the Plan
Recommended Actions for Educators and Evaluators
Recommended Action
Educator
(Individual)
Educator
(Team)
Review actions in Educator
Plans and make agreedupon supports and
resources available to
educator teams and
individuals
Evaluator
Notes

For many educators, key
supports will be those
provided through teams;
evaluators need to have a
system for monitoring that
these supports are provided
Meet with teams to identify
common artifacts all or most
educators will be expected
to collect and analyze
(Refer to the Evidence
Collection Guide in
Appendix C as a resource)



Educators are required to
provide evidence of “fulfillment
of professional
responsibilities…” and “active
outreach to and ongoing
engagement with families.”
Collect evidence of educator
and team practice and
progress toward goals



At least some portion of the
evidence should be collected
by and through teams
Track collection activities



Evaluators must be prepared
to compile and review
evidence for multiple
educators
Document evidence
collected and feedback
given



Records of evidence should
be updated regularly


Consider thoughtful use of
faculty, team/department and
individual meetings

Accelerated school
improvement is more likely
with strong vertical alignment
of goals
Provide regular feedback to
teams and individual
educators
Monitor alignment of
educator actions and goals
with school and district goals
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 49
Step 3: Implementation of the Plan
Strategies and Suggestions for Observations


Frequent, unannounced observations. Frequent observation of classroom practice –
with feedback—is essential to improving practice, but only feasible if most observations are
short, unannounced and followed by brief, focused feedback. There will be times when an
evaluator is in a classroom or other work site and it becomes apparent that the visit needs
to be extended, but a visit of approximately 10 minutes can yield a great deal of useful
information. With short, unannounced visits, many more samples of practice can be
collected, and many more powerful conversations about teaching practice can be had:
when the typical observation of classroom practice is 10 minutes in duration and does not
have to be preceded by a pre-observation conference or followed by a period-long postobservation conference, then evaluators can reasonably be expected to conduct 2 to 5
such observations on a typical day.
o
3 observations conducted each day on 150 of the 180 days in a school year
translate to 450 observations each year, or 10 observations per year for each of 45
teachers. 7-10 brief observations followed by focused feedback should be a
sufficient number to secure a representative picture of practice and promote the
reflection and discussion needed to support improving practice.
o
Feedback can be provided during a conversation or in writing. Providing feedback
through conversation promotes discussion of practice; providing feedback in writing
creates an opportunity for the educator to more easily reflect on the feedback on
an ongoing basis. Whenever possible, an evaluator should have a conversation
with the educator and follow up with brief written feedback summarizing the
conversation and/or offering targeted advice for improvement.
o
It should be noted that not all observations can or should be 5 to 15 minutes. There
will be circumstances where longer observations are appropriate. Novice or
struggling teachers may benefit from longer observations on occasion.
Observations outside of the classroom. Observation of practice need not be limited to
classroom observation. Conferences with individual teachers or teacher teams that focus
on unit planning or ways the team is responding to interim assessment data can yield
useful information and provide opportunities for feedback and growth. They can also be
well-aligned with school and team goals. Most schools have goals that depend on effective
collaboration among educators, so observation of educators in settings where they are
developing their skills in collaboration can support school-wide goals. That said, care
needs to be taken to ensure that observation does not interfere with the free exchange of
ideas that is important in any healthy collegial environment. Therefore, collecting, reviewing
and giving feedback on specific artifacts from department and team meetings can serve a
purpose similar to observation of meetings. Similarly observing educators with parents
and/or reviewing a team’s analysis of representative samples of home-school
communications can support collaborative work, reinforce school goals, and provide
opportunities for useful feedback.
Observation of practice in work sites other than the classroom will be essential for some
educators, as many staff have primary responsibilities that are carried out elsewhere, such
as school nurses, administrators, or department heads.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 50
Step 4: Formative Assessment & Evaluation
Overview
1
The fourth step of the educator evaluation cycle is formative assessment or evaluation , during which
evaluators assess:

educator progress towards attaining goals set forth in Educator Plans;

performance on performance standards; or

both.
This step ensures an opportunity for educators to receive feedback and suggestions for improvement.
Formative assessment may be most valuable when it is ongoing and used to prompt reflection, promote
dialogue between educators and evaluators, and plan changes to practice, goals, or planned activities
when adjustments are necessary. At a minimum, formative assessment should be a mid-cycle opportunity
of taking stock, implemented through a review of evidence collected by both the educator and the
evaluator. If there are patterns of evidence that demonstrate performance that is either unsatisfactory or
in need of improvement, this is a critical time for evaluators to discuss this evidence so there are ―no
surprises‖ during the summative evaluation and more importantly, to provide the educator with the
opportunity to address areas of concern.
Maximizing existing opportunities for evidence reviews, discussions, and feedback through the use of
common planning time, regular faculty meeting breakout sessions, and benchmarking sessions will help
the formative assessment stage in the cycle to be (a) familiar and authentic for educators and (b)
manageable for evaluators. Considering that the professional conversations that take place at this stage
add meaning to the ratings, evaluators will want to ensure that they have established an effective system
for reflecting on artifacts/evidence in a manner that is thoughtful, not rushed, and that allows for
educators’ self-identification of strengths and needs.
Time Frame
The formative review can occur at any time during the evaluation cycle, however, it typically occurs at the
midpoint of an educator’s plan. For example, an
educator on a one-year Development Plan is likely to
participate in a formative assessment in December or
January. Educators on a two-year Self-Directed
Growth Plan participate in a formative evaluation in
May or June, the midpoint of their evaluation cycle.
1
As per 603 CMR 35.02, ―Formative Evaluation shall mean an evaluation at the end of year one for educators on
two-year self-directed plans used to arrive at a rating on progress towards attaining the goals set forth in the plans,
performance on performance standards, or both.‖ (emphasis added) Per 603 CMR 35.06(5)(b), ―The educator's 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 Performance Standards may change.‖
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 51
Step 4: Formative Assessment & Evaluation
Required Outcomes
To do
Primary
Owner
 The Educator provides to the Evaluator evidence of
Educator
Evidence
Collection
Guide
January 18
Evaluator
Formative
Assessment
Form
February 1
Educator
Formative
Assessment
Form
Within 5
school days
of receipt
(contractual)
Evaluator
Formative
Evaluation
Form
June 1
Educator
Formative
Evaluation
Form
Within 5
school days
of receipt
(contractual)
family outreach and engagement, fulfillment of
professional responsibility and growth, and progress on
attaining professional practice and student learning
goals. The Educator may provide additional evidence of
performances against the four Performance Standards.
 For all Educators not on two-year Plans, the Evaluator
conducts Formative Assessments to assess progress
towards attaining goals set forth in the Educator Plans,
performance on performance standards, or both.

While Formative Assessments are ongoing and can
occur at any time during the evaluation cycle, they
typically occur at least mid-cycle.

Copies of Formative Assessment Forms must be
signed by the Evaluator and delivered to the
Educator.

Subsequent to the Formative Assessment, the
Evaluator may place the Educator on a different
Educator Plan.
 The Educator signs the Formative Assessment report
within 5 school days of receiving the report.

The Educator may reply in writing to the report
within 10 school days of receiving the report.
 For all Educators on two-year Self-Directed Growth
Plans, the Evaluator arrives at a rating on progress
towards attaining the goals set forth in the Educator
Plans, performance on performance stands, or both.

Copies of Formative Evaluation Forms must be
signed by the Evaluator and delivered to the
Educator.

Unless there is evidence of a significant change in
performance, the Educator will maintain the same
overall rating from the last summative evaluation.

The Educator and Evaluator may meet for a
conference, if requested by either party.
 The Educator signs the Formative Evaluation report
within 5 school days of receiving the report.

The Educator may reply in writing to the report
within 5 school days of receiving the report.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Forms
Suggested
Due Date
Page 52
Step 4: Formative Assessment & Evaluation
Getting Started
The purpose of the section below is to help educators, evaluators, and school leadership teams prepare
for and engage in formative assessment and evaluation.
As lessons from the early implementers of the regulations emerge, this section of the guide will be
updated to reflect best practices and considerations raised through their experiences.
Conditions for Readiness
This section describes school-wide knowledge, capacity, and information that will increase the readiness
of educators and evaluators to effectively implement this step. If schools find that these conditions do not
exist, that should not delay implementation. However, strengthening these underlying conditions will
increase the likeliness of success. Leadership may need to adjust their communication and professional
development strategies and/or add tasks to their implementation plan.
 Sufficient evidence. Readiness, for this step, means being prepared to have a meaningful
conversation. It is not necessary to have evidence for every Indicator by the point of formative
assessment or evaluation, but educators and evaluators both need to have sufficient evidence to
be able to discuss progress. For evaluators, this should include feedback based on observations
of practice both in and out of the classroom. Evidence should include both benchmark data on
goals and evidence on Standards.
 Active pursuit of goals. Prior to a formative review, educators should have already engaged in
some activities identified on their Educator Plan to support attainment of goals. Given the logistics
and timing of professional development, this can actually be a challenge. Educator Plans should
be written to ensure that some activities can take place prior to mid-cycle.
 Training of and calibration across evaluators. This step was highlighted as a consideration for
planning in the section on Implementation of the Plan; at this point in the cycle, it is a condition for
effective formative reviews. Prior to assessing an educator against Performance Standards, it is
critical that evaluators have training, at a minimum, in the use of a rubric and have begun the
process of calibrating their use of a rubric with other evaluators within the school and/or across
the district.
 Shared vision of effective practice. The ongoing conversation noted as a priority in the
Overview and reinforced through team collaboration activities described in the Self-Assessment
step is foundational to the formative review. The vision of effective practice may perpetually
evolve, but educators and evaluators will be well-served by having some commonality in their
understanding of, for example, distinctions between performance levels (Exemplary versus
Proficient) or alignment between Performance Standards and school goals.
 Plan for assigning ratings. The process of assigning formative or summative evaluation ratings
is both art and science. The ―science‖ of evaluation is the collection of evidence and data that
capture an accurate sample of an educator’s performance. The ―art‖ of evaluation comes when
evaluators apply their professional judgment to the evidence before them in order to assign
formative or summative evaluation ratings. (A good rule of thumb is 2-3 artifacts or examples per
indicator, with a more intensive focus on 3-5 high-priority indicators.) While it is critical that there
be well-documented, organized evidence to support the evaluator’s judgment, there is no set
formula to translate the four performance ratings and progress on goals into an overall rating.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 53
Step 4: Formative Assessment & Evaluation
Considerations for Planning
This section highlights key logistics and practical considerations for implementation that will help school
leadership teams and evaluators plan for effective formative reviews.

Formative conferences. The contractual agreement does not require that a conference take
place as part of a Formative Assessment or Evaluation. Although educators and evaluators should
always have the right to a conference, school and leadership teams may suggest strategic
requirements for conferences. For example:
o
If some educators have only developed team goals, individual conferences may not be
necessary for all of those educators.
o
Conferences may be optional for educators on two-year Self-Directed Growth Plans
whose ratings have not changed but should be required for educators on Improvement or
Directed Growth Plans.
o
Other considerations include the timing of the conference: a conference could occur prior
to issuing the Formative Assessment Report to jointly review and discuss evidence, or it
could occur after the Report to discuss the contents. If members of a team had distinct
responsibilities and contributions, it would make sense to meet first with teams to discuss
progress on team goals and then hold individual conferences.
If, however, a pattern of evidence has emerged that suggests that an educator is on track to
receive a lower rating than at his/her previous summative evaluation, it is critical for the evaluator
and educator to discuss the evidence and feedback for improvement.

Educator evidence. Educators need to know when to provide evidence to their evaluator; and
evaluators need to be aware of how much time they will need or have to review evidence prior to
the formative assessment or evaluation. If educators and evaluators have a formative conference,
the educator may submit evidence prior to the conference, or they may choose to review the
evidence together at the conference. In the latter scenario, if an evaluator is determining ratings
on Performance Standards, he/she should only give provisional ratings prior to seeing the
educator’s evidence.

Analysis of evidence. Educators and evaluators should have engaged in some analysis of
evidence prior to the formative assessment. This will help all parties ensure that they are
presenting relevant data and have identified any trends or patterns. If the educator(s) and
evaluator(s) have a conference, this will create the conditions for a richer conversation and allow
for more focused feedback.
Suggested Resources
In order to provide ongoing feedback for improvement, it is critical that educators have clear and easy
access to certain types of information. The “Suggested Resources” section lists several concrete
resources that will support educators and evaluators to engage in formative assessment or evaluation.

Up-to-date record of evidence and brief analysis, identifying patterns and trends (educator and
evaluator)

Benchmark data on goals

Goals and Educator Plans to review and assess progress
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 54
Step 4: Formative Assessment & Evaluation

Teacher rubric

Collective bargaining agreement (Appendix E) and/or other evaluation requirements
Tools & Forms
The following tools and forms should be used to support implementation:

Formative Assessment Form (Appendix A)

Formative Evaluation Form (Appendix A)

Teacher Rubric (Appendix B)
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 55
Step 4: Formative Assessment & Evaluation
Recommended Actions for Educators and Evaluators
Recommended Action
If requested, schedule time to
have formative conferences
with enough advance notice to
allow both the educator and
evaluator to prepare
Educator
(Individual)

Educator
Evaluator
(Team)

Communicate expectations
about educators’ roles in
sharing evidence during the
conference
Review evidence and artifacts
for Standards and Indicators


Briefly record analysis of
evidence
Determine provisional
formative ratings and progress
toward goals
Share evidence of fulfillment
of professional responsibilities
and outreach to and
engagement with families

Finalize formative ratings.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Notes

Evaluators are not required to
have a conference with all
educators, unless requested;
some conferences may be with
team

Be explicit about how much
documentation or evidence the
educator is expected to bring to
the conference and when

Read through the evidence
chronologically, looking for
patterns and trends 1) over time
and 2) within or across
Standards and/or Indicators

Evaluators should wait to
finalize ratings until the educator
has had the opportunity to
present evidence.

Ratings on performance are
only required for Formative
Evaluations; evaluators should
determine whether there is
significant evidence of a change
in rating
Educators may bring other
relevant evidence


Only required for Formative
Evaluation
Page 56
Step 4: Formative Assessment & Evaluation
Formative Conference Process (if necessary)
Example
The educator and evaluator choose to have a conference for a formative evaluation which will
result in assigned ratings on Standards. The educator prepares a brief analysis of evidence and
brings both the analysis and the evidence to the conference.
1. Evaluator brings the Formative Evaluation Form with the following items completed:
a. Summary of evidence under each standard
b. Provisional ratings for each of the four standards
2. Evaluator brings Formative Evaluation Report Form with the following items left blank:
a. No level of progress on goals, to allow teacher to provide evidence and
encourage discussion (note that assessing performance on goals is optional)
b. No rating in the ―overall performance rating‖ section
3. Evaluator is prepared to offer 2-3 concrete suggestions for improvement in one or two
high-impact areas that may be discussed during the conference
4. Educator brings evidence, summary of evidence, and analysis
5. The evaluator may learn information during the formative evaluation conference that may
change the provisional formative ratings; evaluators should complete the report as soon
after the conference as possible to finalize the formative standard-level ratings and
assess the educator’s progress toward goals
Note: if the educator had shared the evidence with the evaluator prior to the conference in the
scenario above, it would still be wise to consider ratings given prior to the conference to be
provisional pending the formative conversation between the educator and evaluator.
In addition to sharing the Standard-by-Standard summary of evidence, the formative conference is
an opportunity to review and discuss the educator’s progress toward the goals that were set at the
beginning of the evaluation cycle. It is likely that the educator has more information about goal
attainment than the evaluator does. Therefore, evaluators should use the formative assessment
conference to gather additional evidence about performance on specific indicators and the
educator’s progress toward goals. After the conference, this evidence should be used to adjust the
provisional standard-level ratings as necessary.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 57
Step 4: Formative Assessment & Evaluation
Changing the Educator Plan after a Formative Assessment or
Evaluation
Occasionally, an educator’s performance has significantly changed from the last summative
evaluation. When this happens, the evaluator and the educator may need to create a new Educator
Plan with goals targeted toward the specific areas in need of improvement.
Use the following chart to determine if a teacher should move to a different Educator Plan and
evaluation cycle:
Previous summative
New formative rating
rating
Change in Educator
Plan?
Duration of New Plan
and Evaluation Cycle
Exemplary
Proficient
No
N/A
Exemplary or
Proficient
Needs Improvement
Yes
(Directed Growth
Plan)
Up to one school year
Exemplary or
Proficient
Unsatisfactory
Yes
(Improvement Plan)
Up to one school year
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Yes
(Improvement Plan)
At least 30 school
days and no more
than one school year
If a new Educator Plan is warranted, evaluators and educators should set up a time to talk about
developing the new plan. Be aware that the new, shorter evaluation cycle will take effect
immediately and will require another formative assessment prior to the end date of the new plan
(and accompanying summative evaluation).
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 58
Step 5: Summative Evaluation
Overview
The final step of the cycle is the summative evaluation. In this evaluation step, evaluators analyze
evidence that demonstrates the educator’s performance against Performance Standards and evidence of
the attainment of the goals in the Educator Plan to arrive at a rating on each standard and an overall
performance rating based on the evaluator's professional judgment. Evidence and professional judgment
inform the evaluator’s determination.
The process is similar to that of formative assessment and evaluation: evaluators review and analyze
evidence, gather additional evidence and insights from the educator, and issue performance ratings on
each standard as well as an overall rating.
There are two key differences between the formative assessment/evaluation and summative evaluation:

The summative evaluation involves a separate rating of educators’ impact on student learning,
based on trends and patterns in statewide and district-determined measures that are comparable
across grade and/or subject (to be implemented beginning in 2013-14).

The summative evaluation results determine the type and duration of an educator’s subsequent
Educator Plan, as well as consequences around rewards and recognition and local personnel
decisions.
The summative evaluation step completes a full evaluation cycle. The meaning behind this step does not
lie in the end of one cycle, however, but in the beginning of the next. Thoughtful summative evaluation
that identifies trends and patterns in performance and offers feedback for improvement provides
educators with valuable information that strengthens the self-reflection and analysis educators engage in
as they continue through the improvement cycle with Step 1: Self-Assessment and Goal Proposal. The
school-wide patterns and trends that emerge through formative and summative evaluations provide
school leadership teams with valuable information that can strengthen the professional development and
opportunities for growth that are offered to the school.
Evaluation practices that are strong throughout the five-step cycle—promoting coherence, connection,
collaboration, and conversation—serve as a catalyst for change in culture and practice. Together,
educators, evaluators, and school leadership teams will have ensured that they do not miss this critical
opportunity for promoting better leading, better teaching, better learning, and better schools.
Time Frame
The summative evaluation occurs at the end of each educator’s individualized Educator Plan and guides
plan development for the subsequent cycle. Most educators will receive a summative evaluation near the
end of a school year, although educators on a Directed Growth Plan or Improvement Plan may have
more than one summative evaluation in a single year.
Please note: Evaluators will not rate educators’ impact on student learning until at least 2013-2014 (or
later, depending upon data availability) so this guide does not address the process for incorporating the
rating of an educator’s impact on student learning.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 59
Step 5: Summative Evaluation
Required Outcomes
To do
Primary
Owner
 The Educator provides to the Evaluator evidence of
Educator
Evidence
Collection
Guide
April 20
Evaluator
Summative
Evaluation
Form
June 1
(contractual)
Educator
Summative
Evaluation
Form
June 1
(contractual)
family outreach and engagement, fulfillment of
professional responsibility and growth, and progress
on attaining professional practice and student learning
goals. The Educator may provide additional evidence
of the Educator’s performances against the four
Performance Standards.
 The Evaluator completes Summative Evaluations to
determine 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 attainment of the Educator
Plan goals.

Suggested
Due Date
Copies of Summative Evaluation Forms must be
signed by the Evaluator and delivered to the
Educator.
 The Educator signs the Summative Evaluation Form.
 The Educator may reply in writing to the report.
 The Evaluator meets with Educators whose overall
Summative Evaluation ratings are Needs Improvement
or Unsatisfactory.

Forms
Evaluator
& Educator
June 1
(contractual)
The Evaluator may meet with Educators whose
ratings are Proficient or Exemplary, if requested.
*To be rated Proficient overall, the Educator must have been rated at least a Proficient on both
―Curriculum, Planning and Assessment‖ and ―Teaching All Students‖ Standards.
Please note: Professional teacher status should be granted only to educators who have achieved ratings
of Proficient or Exemplary on each Performance Standard and overall. A principal considering making an
employment decision that would lead to professional teacher status for any educator who has not been
rated proficient or exemplary on each Performance Standard and overall on the most recent evaluation
shall confer with the superintendent of schools by May 1. The principal's decision is subject to review and
approval by the superintendent.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 60
Step 5: Summative Evaluation
Getting Started
The purpose of the section below is to help educators, evaluators, and school leadership teams get
started with the implementation of summative evaluations.
Note that many aspects of Step 5: Summative Evaluation are similar to Step 4: Formative
Assessment & Evaluation. For additional Conditions for Readiness and Considerations for
Planning, refer to pages 53-54 of this guide.
As lessons from the early implementers of the regulations emerge, this section of the guide will be
updated to reflect best practices and considerations raised through their experiences.
Conditions for Readiness
This section describes school-wide knowledge, capacity, and information that will increase the readiness
of educators and evaluators to effectively implement this step. If schools find that these conditions do not
exist, that should not delay implementation. However, strengthening these underlying conditions will
increase the likeliness of success. Leadership may need to adjust their communication and professional
development strategies and/or add tasks to their implementation plan.
 Sufficient evidence. At this stage, evaluators should have multiple data points for every
Standard and Indicator (although the preponderance of evidence for a particular Standard may
fall within a specific Indicator if it was an area of focus or priority). This evidence can include that
which educators provide.
Considerations for Planning
This section highlights key logistics and practical considerations for implementation that will help school
leadership teams and evaluators plan.

Time for reflection. School leadership teams, evaluators, and educators should ensure that they
set time aside to consider the information and lessons gleaned from this process in two key
areas:
1. Implementation of educator evaluation. To increase the effectiveness of evaluations in
the upcoming school year and/or evaluation cycle, leadership teams and the faculty
should discuss the successes and challenges experienced by different members of the
school, strategies for improving the process, and supports needed for more effective
implementation.
2. Connections between educator progress and school and district goals. Well-aligned
goals are emphasized as a priority for the purpose of accelerating school progress.
School leadership should examine the connections between educator progress on goals
and school or district progress on goals. This information can be used to prioritize certain
Standards, Indicators, and/or Elements for the next school year. All members of the
school should engage in conversation on attainment of school goals, including areas still
in need of improvement and opportunities to scale up or replicate success. These
conversations—including a focused review of progress on short term goals—will enable
the school to work strategically toward long term goals.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 61
Step 5: Summative Evaluation
Suggested Resources
In order to create coherence across existing or planned initiatives, align individual and team goals with
school and district goals and priorities, and promote collaboration and conversation, it is critical that
educators have clear and easy access to certain types of information. The “Suggested Resources”
section lists several concrete resources that will support educators to engage in self-assessment and goal
proposal thoughtfully and effectively.

Up-to-date record of evidence and brief analysis, identifying patterns and trends (educator and
evaluator)

Benchmark and final data on goals

Goals and Educator Plans to review and assess progress

Teacher rubric (Appendix B)

Collective bargaining agreement (Appendix E) and/or other evaluation requirements

Completed Self-Assessment & Goal Setting Form (Appendix A)

Evaluator’s record of evidence

Educator’s collection of evidence

Completed Formative Assessment or Evaluation Form (Appendix A)
Tools & Forms
The following tools and forms should be used to support implementation:

Summative Evaluation Form (Appendix A)

Teacher Rubric (Appendix B)

Rating to Plan mapping guide (effective until the introduction of rating on student impact):
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 62
Step 5: Summative Evaluation
Recommended Actions for Educators and Evaluators
Recommended Action
Educator
(Individual)
Educator
(Team)
Evaluator
Notes

Make sure the educator knows
the purpose of the meeting, how
to prepare, and the expected
outcomes of the discussion.
Summative conferences are
required only for Educators
rated needs improvement or
st
unsatisfactory (by June 1 )

Be explicit about how much
documentation or evidence the
educator is expected to bring to
the conference and when

Read through the evidence
chronologically, looking for
patterns and trends 1) over time
and 2) within or across
Standards and/or Indicators

Formative assessments provide
additional evidence of feedback
the educator has received as
well as a record of evidence of
progress, performance, and
patterns
Briefly record analysis of
evidence

Evaluators should wait to
finalize ratings until the educator
has had the opportunity to
present evidence
Determine provisional
summative ratings and
progress toward goals

Summative conference, if any,
may reveal information that
affects ratings
Schedule times of
summative conferences
with enough advance
notice to allow both the
educator and evaluator to
prepare


Communicate expectations
about educators’ roles in
sharing evidence during the
conference
Review evidence and
artifacts for each Standard
and Indicator
Review Formative
Assessment/Evaluation
Share evidence of
fulfillment of professional
responsibilities and
outreach to and
engagement with families



Finalize summative ratings
for each standard and for
the Overall Summative
Rating
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Educators may bring other
relevant evidence


Overall summative rating also
takes progress on goals into
consideration
Page 63
Step 5: Summative Evaluation
Moving Forward
The summative evaluation step marks the end of one evaluation cycle and kicks off a new cycle of
self-assessment, goal setting, and plan development. When well-implemented, educators will leave
the summative evaluation conference with a good idea of their next steps for the following
evaluation cycle. The new cycle will coincide with the new school year for educators on a
Development Plan or Self-Directed Growth Plan, but it may begin midyear for educators on a
Directed Growth Plan or Improvement Plan.
Ultimately, both the summative performance rating and the rating of impact on student learning will
jointly determine the next Educator Plan for each educator. However, the Impact on Student
Learning category will not go into effect until at least 2013-2014 and require patterns and trends
across a minimum of two years of data for at least two district-determined measures of student
learning, growth, and achievement to be established. It is likely that most educators will not receive
an Impact Rating until Spring of 2015.
In the meantime, the Summative Rating categories can guide evaluators in determining the
appropriate Educator Plan for each educator:

Educators without Professional Teacher Status (PTS) and those in a new assignment (at the
discretion of the evaluator) – Development Plan

Educators with PTS rated Proficient or Exemplary – Self-Directed Growth Plan

Educators with PTS rated as Needs Improvement – Directed Growth Plan

Educators with PTS rated as Unsatisfactory – Improvement Plan, with goals specific to
improving the educator’s unsatisfactory performance
Until impact ratings are incorporated into the summative evaluation, district transition plans may
determine whether a one- or two-year Self-Directed Growth Plan is warranted for specific groups of
educators. For example, a district may decide that veteran teachers new to a school should be
placed on a one-year plan to ensure necessary supports during acclimation. In other instances, it
might be helpful for school leadership teams and evaluators to consider the frequency of check-ins
with an educator around specific areas for growth, or how the one- versus two-year plans will
balance an evaluator’s workload.
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 64
Appendices
References
Bernhardt, V. L., (2004). Data analysis for continuous school improvement: Second edition. Larchmont,
NY: Eye on education.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., and Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional
learning in the learning profession: a status report on teacher development in the United States and
abroad. National Staff Development Council.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, K.S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional
development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594138.
Gallimore, R, Ermeling, B.A., Saunders, W.M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the Learning of Teaching
Closer to Practice: Teacher Education Implications of School-based Inquiry Teams. Elementary
School Journal (special issue).
Jonsson, A. & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational
consequences.
Educational
Research
Review,
2,
130-144.
Retrieved
from
http://uncw.edu/cas/documents/JonssonandSvingby2007.pdf.
Kowal, J. & Hassel, E. A. (2010). Measuring teachers’ contributions to student learning growth for
nontested subjects and grades. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact. Retrieved from
http://www.tqsource.org/publications/MeasuringTeachersContributions.pdf.
Massachusetts Task Force on the Evaluation of Teachers and Administrators. (2011, March). Building a
breakthrough framework for educator evaluation in the Commonwealth. Malden, MA: Massachusetts
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
McDougall, D. Saunders, W. and Goldenberg, C. (2007). Inside the black box of school reform:
Explaining the how and why of change at Getting Results schools. Joumal of Disability,
Development, and Education, 54, Number 1.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What makes professional
development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational
Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30069418.
Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N. , & Gallimore, R. (2009) Increasing achievement by focusing grade
level teams on improving classroom learning: a prospective, quasi-experimental study of Title 1
schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 4, 1006-1033.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning
communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80-91
SEEDS Planning and Implementation Guide
Page 65
Appendices
Appendix A: Forms
Overview of Forms
The forms included in this Appendix have been contractually agreed upon and are provided as tools to
support educators and evaluators as they implement the SEEDS.

Self-Assessment and Goal Setting Form

Educator Announced Observation Form

Educator Unannounced Observation Form

Formative Assessment Form

Formative Evaluation Form

Summative Evaluation Form

Improvement Plan
Appendix A: Forms
Page A-1
Springfield Public Schools
Self-Assessment and Goal Setting Form
Educator
School Year
Evaluator
Subject
Area(s)
Grade(s)
School
Educator Plan
Date Initiated:
Date(s) Reviewed:
 Self-Directed Growth Plan
All experienced educators rated Exemplary or
Proficient
 One-Year
 Two-Year
 Developing Educator Plan
All administrators in their first three years with the
district, teachers without Professional Teacher
Status, and, at the discretion of the evaluator,
educators in new assignments
 Directed Growth Plan
All experienced educators rated Needs
Improvement
 Improvement Plan
All experienced educators rated Unsatisfactory
 Duration of Plan: ____________________
(no shorter than 30 days; no longer than 1 year)
1
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Self-Assessment Part 1 of 2
Each educator should begin their self-assessment by scoring themselves and providing notes on the standards and indicators
of effective teaching. Each indicator should be scored on the four point scale: Exemplary (E), Proficient (P), Needs
Improvement (N), or Unsatisfactory (U). Please use the Standards & Indicators on the next page as reference.
E
P
N
U
Notes
Standard I: Curriculum, Planning and Assessment
Curriculum and Planning
Assessment
Analysis
Standard II: Teaching All Students
Instruction
Learning Environment
Cultural Proficiency
Expectations
Standard III: Family and Community Engagement
Engagement
Collaboration
Communication
Standard IV: Professional and Culture
Reflection
Professional Growth
Collaboration
Decision-making
Shared Responsibility
Professional Responsibilities
2
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Self-Assessment Part 2 of 2
Student Learning
Briefly summarize areas of strength and high-priority concerns for students under your
responsibility for the upcoming school year. Support with evidence such as results from assessments.
Historical Evidence from Students (if applicable)
Goals to Improve Current Students
 Individual
 Team/Department Name:
_______________________


Individual
Team/Department Name: _______________________
Professional Practice
Citing specific indicators from your Part 1 self-assessment, briefly summarize 1-2 areas of strength and 1-2
high-priority areas for growth. Areas for growth can target specific sub-indicators or generalize across multiple sub-indicators.
Areas of Strength
Areas of Improvement




Individual
Team/Department Name: _______________________
Individual
Team/Department Name: _______________________
3
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Goal Setting: Student Learning
District Goals and
School Goals
Individual/Grade-level/Team Student Learning
SMART (Specific, Measurable, Action oriented, Realistic, Timed) Goal
District Goal:


Individual
Team/Department Name: ________________________________________
School Goal:
Actions
Timeline or Frequency
Resources or Support
4
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Goal Setting: Professional Practice
Standards of Practice
Individual/Grade-level/Team Professional Practice
SMART (Specific, Measurable, Action oriented, Realistic, Timed) Goal


Actions
Educator
Signature
Individual
Team/Department Name: ________________________________________
Timeline or Frequency
Evaluator
Signature
Resources or Support
Date of
Conference
5
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Additional Notes (Optional)
6
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Springfield Public Schools
Educator Announced Observation Form
Educator
School Year
Evaluator
Subject Area(s)
School
Grade(s)
Pre-Conference
Date
Observation
Start Time
Observation
Date
Observation
End Time
Unusual
conditions
Evaluator Signature
Date
Educator Signature
Date
The educator’s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the evaluator’s observations and feedback. The
educator has the right to make a written response within 10 calendar days after the post-conference.
1
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Rating of Educator Practice
Standard
I: Curriculum, Planning
and Assessment
Exemplary

Observations:

Needs
Improvement



Proficient
Unsatisfactory

Feedback:
II: Teaching All Students

Observations:

Feedback:
2
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Educator initials: ____
Springfield Public Schools
Educator Unannounced Observation Form
Educator
School Year
Evaluator
Subject
Area(s)
School
Grade(s)
Observation
Start Time
Observation
Date
Observation
End Time
Unusual
conditions
Rating of Educator Practice
Exemplary
Proficient
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory




Observation rating
Evaluator Signature
Date
Educator requests post-conference by checking box to the right
(optional)
Educator Signature
(if applicable)*

Date
*Signature applicable if educator receives a needs improvement or unsatisfactory performance rating, or upon an educator
request for a post-conference. The educator’s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the evaluator’s
observations and feedback. The educator has the right to make a written response within 10 calendar days after the postconference.
1
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Educator initials: ____
Observations and Feedback
Observations
Feedback
2
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Formative Assessment
Springfield Public Schools
Annual Cycle Formative Assessment – Typically Mid-year
(Applicable for a Self-Directed 1-Year Growth Plan, Directed Growth Plan,
Improvement Plan or Developing Educator Plan)
Educator
School Year
Evaluator
Subject
Area(s)
School
Grade(s)
Assessing:
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.
1
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Performance on Each Standard
Describe performance and feedback for improvement. Attach additional pages as needed.
I: Curriculum, Planning and Assessment
II: Teaching All Students
III: Family and Community Engagement
IV: Professional Culture
Plan Moving Forward
 Self-Directed
Growth 2-year
 Self-Directed
Growth 1-year
 Directed Growth
Plan
 Improvement
Plan
 Developing
Educator Plan
Conference Date (if applicable)*
Evaluator Signature
Date
Educator Signature
Date
*Conference applicable based on an educator request for a conference, an educator’s placement on a new educator plan, or
based on evaluator’s discretion.
The educator’s signature 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.
2
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Formative Evaluation
Springfield Public Schools
Two-Year Cycle Formative Evaluation – Typically Mid-cycle
(Applicable for a Self-Directed 2-Year Growth Plan)
Educator
School Year
Evaluator
Subject
Area(s)
School
Grade(s)
Assessing:
Progress toward attaining goals
Performance on Standards
Both
Progress Toward Student Learning Goal(s)
Attach additional pages as needed.
 Did not meet
 Some progress
 Significant
progress
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement.
 Met
 Exceeded
Progress Toward Professional Practice Goal(s)
Attach additional pages as needed.
 Did not meet
 Some progress
 Significant
progress
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement.
 Met
 Exceeded
1
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
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,  Unsatisfactory
& Assessment
 Needs
Improvement
 Proficient
 Exemplary
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement (refer to specific elements on rubric):
II: Teaching All
 Unsatisfactory
 Needs
 Proficient
 Exemplary
Students
Improvement
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement (refer to specific elements on rubric):
 Needs
 Proficient
 Exemplary
III: Family/Community  Unsatisfactory
Improvement
Engagement
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement (refer to specific elements on rubric):
IV: Professional
 Unsatisfactory
 Needs
 Proficient
 Exemplary
Culture
Improvement
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement (refer to specific elements on rubric):
2
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
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
Overall Performance Rating
 Unsatisfactory
 Needs Improvement
 Proficient
 Exemplary
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement (refer to specific elements on rubric):
Plan Moving Forward
 Self-Directed
Growth 2-year
 Self-Directed
Growth 1-year
 Directed Growth
Plan
 Improvement
Plan
 Developing
Educator Plan
Conference Date (if applicable)*
Evaluator Signature
Date
Educator Signature
Date
*Conference applicable based on a needs improvement or unsatisfactory performance rating, an educator’s request for a
conference, an educator’s placement on a new educator plan, or evaluator’s discretion.
The educator’s signature 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.
3
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Springfield Public Schools
Summative Evaluation
Educator
School Year
Evaluator
Subject
Area(s)
School
Grade(s)
Current Plan
 Self-Directed
Growth 2-year
 Self-Directed
Growth 1-year
 Directed Growth
Plan
 Improvement
Plan
 Developing
Educator Plan
Progress Toward Student Learning Goal(s)
Attach additional pages as needed.
 Did not meet
 Some progress
 Significant
progress
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement.
 Met
 Exceeded
Progress Toward Professional Practice Goal(s)
Attach additional pages as needed.
 Did not meet
 Some progress
 Significant
progress
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement.
 Met
 Exceeded
1
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Rating on Each Standard
I: Curriculum, Planning,  Unsatisfactory
& Assessment
 Needs
Improvement
 Proficient
 Exemplary
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement (refer to specific elements on rubric):
II: Teaching All
 Unsatisfactory
 Needs
 Proficient
 Exemplary
Students
Improvement
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement (refer to specific elements on rubric):
 Needs
 Proficient
 Exemplary
III: Family/Community  Unsatisfactory
Improvement
Engagement
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement (refer to specific elements on rubric):
IV: Professional
 Unsatisfactory
 Needs
 Proficient
 Exemplary
Culture
Improvement
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement (refer to specific elements on rubric):
2
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Overall Performance Rating
 Unsatisfactory
 Needs Improvement
 Proficient*
 Exemplary
Rationale, evidence, and feedback for improvement (refer to specific elements on rubric):
* To be rated proficient overall, an educator shall, at a minimum, have been rated proficient on Standard I:
Curriculum, Planning and Assessment and Standard II: Teaching All Students.
Plan Moving Forward
 Self-Directed
Growth 2-year
 Self-Directed
Growth 1-year
 Directed Growth
Plan
 Improvement
Plan
 Developing
Educator Plan
Conference Date
Evaluator Signature
Date
Educator Signature
Date
The educator’s signature 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.
Educators with Professional Teacher Status (PTS)
 Educator currently has PTS
Educators without Professional Teacher Status (PTS)
 Recommended for PTS – Granted to educators who have completed three years of employment in Springfield Public Schools and
have achieved ratings of proficient or exemplary on each performance standard and overall. Exceptions require the evaluator to confer
with the Superintendent.
 Recommended for re-appointment (Non PTS)
 Not recommended for re-appointment (Non PTS)
3
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Springfield Public Schools
Improvement Plan
Educator
School Year
Evaluator
Subject
Area(s)
School
Grade(s)
Improvement Plan Start Date
Duration of Plan (no shorter than 30 school days;
no longer than one school year)
Extension of Plan Duration (if applicable)
Number of formal unannounced observations
Student Learning Goal(s)
Professional Practice Goal(s)
1
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Action(s) Required for Educator Improvement
Support(s) Provided to Assist Educator
Improvement
Evaluator Signature
Date
(acknowledges that the Evaluator has shared Improvement
Plan with Educator)
Date
Educator Signature
(acknowledges that the Educator has seen Improvement
Plan)
Evaluator’s Improvement Plan Assessment
 Educator improved and moves to appropriate plan (summative evaluation required)
 Educator Improvement Plan is extended based on the educator achieving some growth (duration required)
 Educator did not improve and is recommended for dismissal (summative evaluation required)
Evaluator Signature
Date
Educator Signature
Date
The educator’s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the evaluator’s recommendation at the end of the
Improvement Plan. The educator has the right to make a written response within 10 calendar days after the evaluation
conference. The statement will become part of the Improvement Plan document.
2
Prepared by the Springfield Massachusetts Public School System and the Springfield Education Association / MTA / NEA
Appendices
Appendix B: Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching
Practice: 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 SEEDS 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.
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.
Appendix B: Teacher Rubric
Page B-1
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Standard I: Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment. The teacher promotes the learning and growth of all students by providing highquality 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-2.
Child and
Adolescent
Development
Demonstrates little or no knowledge of
developmental levels of students this
age or differences in how students
learn. Typically develops one learning
experience for all students that does
not enable most students to meet the
intended outcomes.
Demonstrates knowledge of
developmental levels of students this
age but does not identify
developmental levels and ways of
learning among the students in the
class and/or develops learning
experiences that enable some, but not
all, students to move toward meeting
intended outcomes.
Demonstrates knowledge of the
developmental levels of students in
the classroom and the different
ways these students learn by
providing differentiated learning
experiences that enable all
students to progress toward
meeting intended outcomes.
Demonstrates expert knowledge of
the developmental levels of the
teacher’s own students and students
in this grade or subject more generally
and uses this knowledge to
differentiate and expand learning
experiences that enable all students
to make significant progress toward
meeting stated outcomes. 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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 1 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Unsatisfactory
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
I-A-3.
Rigorous
StandardsBased Unit
Design
Plans individual lessons rather than
units of instruction, or designs units of
instruction that are not aligned with
state standards/ local curricula, lack
measurable outcomes, and/or include
tasks that mostly rely on lower level
thinking skills.
Designs units of instruction that
address some knowledge and skills
defined in state standards/local
curricula, but some student outcomes
are poorly defined and/or tasks rarely
require higher-order thinking skills.
Designs units of instruction with
measurable outcomes and
challenging tasks requiring higherorder thinking skills that enable
students to learn the knowledge
and skills defined in state
standards/local curricula.
Designs integrated units of instruction
with measurable, accessible
outcomes and challenging tasks
requiring higher-order thinking skills
that enable students to learn and
apply the knowledge and skills
defined in state standards/local
curricula. Is able to model this
element.
I-A-4.
WellStructured
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.
I-A. Elements
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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 2 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Indicator I-B.
I-B.
Elements
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.
Unsatisfactory
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
I-B-1.
Variety of
Assessment
Methods
Administers only the assessments
required by the school and/or
measures only point-in-time student
achievement.
May administer some informal and/or
formal assessments to measure
student learning but rarely measures
student progress toward achieving
state/local standards.
Designs and administers a variety
of informal and formal methods
and assessments, including
common interim assessments, to
measure each student’s learning,
growth, and progress toward
achieving state/local standards.
Uses an integrated, comprehensive
system of informal and formal
assessments, including common
interim assessments, to measure
student learning, growth, and
progress toward achieving state/local
standards. Is able to model this
element.
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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 3 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Indicator I-C. Analysis: Analyzes data from assessments, draws conclusions, and shares them appropriately.
I-C.
Elements
Unsatisfactory
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
I-C-1.
Analysis and
Conclusions
Does not draw conclusions from
student data beyond completing
minimal requirements such as
grading for report cards.
Draws conclusions from a limited
analysis of student data to inform
student grading and promotion
decisions.
Individually and with colleagues,
draws appropriate conclusions
from a thorough analysis of a wide
range of assessment data to
improve student learning.
Individually and with colleagues,
draws appropriate, actionable
conclusions from a thorough analysis
of a wide range of assessment data
that improve short- and long-term
instructional decisions. Is able to
model this element.
I-C-2.
Sharing
Conclusions
With Colleagues
Rarely shares with colleagues
conclusions about student progress
and/or rarely seeks feedback.
Only occasionally shares with
colleagues conclusions about student
progress and/or only occasionally
seeks feedback from them about
practices that will support improved
student learning.
Regularly shares with appropriate
colleagues (e.g., general
education, special education, and
English learner staff) conclusions
about student progress and seeks
feedback from them about
instructional or assessment
practices that will support
improved student learning.
Establishes and implements a
schedule and plan for regularly
sharing with all appropriate
colleagues conclusions and insights
about student progress. Seeks and
applies feedback from them about
practices that will support improved
student learning. Is able to model this
element.
I-C-3.
Sharing
Conclusions
With Students
Provides little or no feedback on
student performance except through
grades or report of task completion,
or provides inappropriate feedback
that does not support students to
improve their performance.
Provides some feedback about
performance beyond grades but
rarely shares strategies for students
to improve their performance toward
objectives.
Based on assessment results,
provides descriptive feedback and
engages students and families in
constructive conversation that
focuses on how students can
improve their performance.
Establishes early, constructive
feedback loops with students and
families that create a dialogue about
performance, progress, and
improvement. 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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 4 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
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.
II-A-2.
Student
Engagement
Uses instructional practices that leave
most students uninvolved and/or
passive participants.
Uses instructional practices that
motivate and engage some students
but leave others uninvolved and/or
passive participants.
Consistently uses instructional
practices that are likely to motivate
and engage most students during
the lesson.
Consistently uses instructional
practices that typically motivate and
engage most students both during the
lesson and during independent work
and home work. Is able to model this
element.
II-A-3.
Meeting Diverse
Needs
Uses limited and/or inappropriate
practices to accommodate
differences.
May use some appropriate practices
to accommodate differences, but fails
to address an adequate range of
differences.
Uses appropriate practices,
including tiered instruction and
scaffolds, to accommodate
differences in learning styles,
needs, interests, and levels of
readiness, including those of
students with disabilities and
English learners.
Uses a varied repertoire of practices
to create structured opportunities for
each student to meet or exceed state
standards/local curriculum and
behavioral expectations. 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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 5 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Indicator II-B. Learning Environment: Creates and maintains a safe and collaborative learning environment that motivates students to
take academic risks, challenge themselves, and claim ownership of their learning.
II-B.
Elements
Unsatisfactory
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
II-B-1.
Safe Learning
Environment
Maintains a physical environment that
is unsafe or does not support student
learning. Uses inappropriate or
ineffective rituals, routines, and/or
responses to reinforce positive
behavior or respond to behaviors that
interfere with students’ learning.
May create and maintain a safe
physical environment but
inconsistently maintains rituals,
routines, and responses needed to
prevent and/or stop behaviors that
interfere with all students’ learning.
Uses rituals, routines, and
appropriate responses that create
and maintain a safe physical and
intellectual environment where
students take academic risks and
most behaviors that interfere with
learning are prevented.
Uses rituals, routines, and proactive
responses that create and maintain a
safe physical and intellectual
environment where students take
academic risks and play an active
role—individually and collectively—in
preventing behaviors that interfere
with learning. Is able to model this
element.
II-B-2.
Collaborative
Learning
Environment
Makes little effort to teach
interpersonal, group, and
communication skills or facilitate
student work in groups, or such
attempts are ineffective.
Teaches some interpersonal, group,
and communication skills and
provides some opportunities for
students to work in groups.
Develops students’ interpersonal,
group, and communication skills
and provides opportunities for
students to learn in groups with
diverse peers.
Teaches and reinforces interpersonal,
group, and communication skills so
that students seek out their peers as
resources. Is able to model this
practice.
II-B-3.
Student
Motivation
Directs all learning experiences,
providing few, if any, opportunities for
students to take academic risks or
challenge themselves to learn.
Creates some learning experiences
that guide students to identify needs,
ask for support, and challenge
themselves to take academic risks.
Consistently creates learning
experiences that guide students to
identify their strengths, interests,
and needs; ask for support when
appropriate; take academic risks;
and challenge themselves to learn.
Consistently supports students to
identify strengths, interests, and
needs; ask for support; take risks;
challenge themselves; set learning
goals; and monitor their own
progress. Models these skills for
colleagues.
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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 6 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Indicator II-C. Cultural Proficiency: Actively creates and maintains an environment in which students’ diverse backgrounds, identities,
strengths, and challenges are respected.
II-C.
Elements
Unsatisfactory
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
II-C-1.
Respects
Differences
Establishes an environment in which
students demonstrate limited respect
for individual differences.
Establishes an environment in which
students generally demonstrate
respect for individual differences
Consistently uses strategies and
practices that are likely to enable
students to demonstrate respect
for and affirm their own and others’
differences related to background,
identity, language, strengths, and
challenges.
Establishes an environment in which
students respect and affirm their own
and others’ differences and are
supported to share and explore
differences and similarities related to
background, identity, language,
strengths, and challenges. Is able to
model this practice.
II-C-2.
Maintains
Respectful
Environment
Minimizes or ignores conflicts and/or
responds in inappropriate ways.
Anticipates and responds
appropriately to some conflicts or
misunderstandings but ignores and/or
minimizes others.
Anticipates and responds
appropriately to conflicts or
misunderstandings arising from
differences in backgrounds,
languages, and identities.
Anticipates and responds
appropriately to conflicts or
misunderstandings arising from
differences in backgrounds,
languages, and identities in ways that
lead students to be able to do the
same independently. Is able to model
this practice.
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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 7 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Indicator II-D. Expectations: Plans and implements lessons that set clear and high expectations and also make knowledge accessible
for all students.
II-D. Elements
Unsatisfactory
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
II-D-1.
Clear
Expectations
Does not make specific academic and
behavior expectations clear to
students.
May announce and post classroom
academic and behavior rules and
consequences, but inconsistently or
ineffectively enforces them.
Clearly communicates and
consistently enforces specific
standards for student work, effort,
and behavior.
Clearly communicates and
consistently enforces specific
standards for student work, effort, and
behavior so that most students are
able to describe them and take
ownership of meeting them. Is able to
model this element.
II-D-2.
High
Expectations
Gives up on some students or
communicates that some cannot
master challenging material.
May tell students that the subject or
assignment is challenging and that
they need to work hard but does little
to counteract student misconceptions
about innate ability.
Effectively models and reinforces
ways that students can master
challenging material through
effective effort, rather than having
to depend on innate ability.
Effectively models and reinforces
ways that students can consistently
master challenging material through
effective effort. Successfully
challenges students’ misconceptions
about innate ability. Is able to model
this element.
II-D-3.
Access to
Knowledge
Rarely adapts instruction, materials,
and assessments to make
challenging material accessible to all
students.
Occasionally adapts instruction,
materials, and assessments to make
challenging material accessible to all
students.
Consistently adapts instruction,
materials, and assessments to
make challenging material
accessible to all students,
including English learners and
students with disabilities.
Individually and with colleagues,
consistently adapts instruction,
materials, and assessments to make
challenging material accessible to all
students, including English learners
and students with disabilities. 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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 8 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
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-A.
III-A.
Elements
III-A-1.
Parent/Family
Engagement
Engagement: Welcomes and encourages every family to become active participants in the classroom and school
community.
Unsatisfactory
Does not welcome families to become
participants in the classroom and
school community or actively
discourages their participation.
Needs Improvement
Makes limited attempts to involve
families in school and/or classroom
activities, meetings, and planning.
Proficient
Uses a variety of strategies to
support every family to participate
actively and appropriately in the
classroom and school community.
Exemplary
Successfully engages most families
and sustains their active and
appropriate participation in the
classroom and school community. Is
able to model this element.
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-1.
Learning
Expectations
Does not inform parents about
learning or behavior expectations.
Sends home only a list of classroom
rules and the learning outline or
syllabus for the year.
Consistently provides parents with
clear, user-friendly expectations
for student learning and behavior.
Successfully conveys to most parents
student learning and behavior
expectations. Is able to model this
element.
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.
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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 9 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Indicator III-C. Communication: Engages in regular, two-way, and culturally proficient communication with families about student
learning and performance.
III-C.
Elements
Unsatisfactory
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
III-C-1.
Two-Way
Communication
Rarely communicates with families
except through report cards; rarely
solicits or responds promptly and
carefully to communications from
families.
Relies primarily on newsletters and
other one-way media and usually
responds promptly to communications
from families.
Regularly uses two-way
communication with families about
student performance and learning
and responds promptly and
carefully to communications from
families.
Regularly uses a two-way system that
supports frequent, proactive, and
personalized communication with
families about student performance
and learning. Is able to model this
element.
III-C-2.
Culturally
Proficient
Communication
Makes few attempts to respond to
different family cultural norms and/or
responds inappropriately or
disrespectfully.
May communicate respectfully and
make efforts to take into account
different families’ home language,
culture, and values, but does so
inconsistently or does not
demonstrate understanding and
sensitivity to the differences.
Always communicates respectfully
with families and demonstrates
understanding of and sensitivity to
different families’ home language,
culture, and values.
Always communicates respectfully
with families and demonstrates
understanding and appreciation of
different families’ home language,
culture, and values. 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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 10 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Standard IV: Professional Culture. The teacher promotes the learning and growth of all students through ethical, culturally proficient,
skilled, and collaborative practice.
Indicator IV-A. Reflection: Demonstrates the capacity to reflect on and improve the educator’s own practice, using informal means as
well as meetings with teams and work groups to gather information, analyze data, examine issues, set meaningful goals,
and develop new approaches in order to improve teaching and learning.
IV-A. Elements
Unsatisfactory
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
IV-A-1.
Reflective
Practice
Demonstrates limited reflection on
practice and/or use of insights gained
to improve practice.
May reflect on the effectiveness of
lessons/ units and interactions with
students but not with colleagues
and/or rarely uses insights to improve
practice.
Regularly reflects on the
effectiveness of lessons, units, and
interactions with students, both
individually and with colleagues,
and uses insights gained to
improve practice and student
learning.
Regularly reflects on the
effectiveness of lessons, units, and
interactions with students, both
individually and with colleagues; and
uses and shares with colleagues,
insights gained to improve practice
and student learning. Is able to model
this element.
IV-A-2.
Goal Setting
Generally, participates passively in
the goal-setting process and/or
proposes goals that are vague or
easy to reach.
Proposes goals that are sometimes
vague or easy to achieve and/or
bases goals on a limited selfassessment and analysis of student
learning data.
Proposes challenging, measurable
professional practice, team, and
student learning goals that are
based on thorough selfassessment and analysis of
student learning data.
Individually and with colleagues
builds capacity to propose and
monitor challenging, measurable
goals based on thorough selfassessment and analysis of student
learning data. 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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 11 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Indicator IV-B. Professional Growth: Actively pursues professional development and learning opportunities to improve quality of
practice or build the expertise and experience to assume different instructional and leadership roles.
IV-B. Elements
IV-B-1.
Professional
Learning and
Growth
Unsatisfactory
Participates in few, if any,
professional development and
learning opportunities to improve
practice and/or applies little new
learning to practice.
Needs Improvement
Participates only in required
professional development activities
and/or inconsistently or
inappropriately applies new learning
to improve practice.
Proficient
Consistently seeks out and
applies, when appropriate, ideas
for improving practice from
supervisors, colleagues,
professional development
activities, and other resources to
gain expertise and/or assume
different instruction and leadership
responsibilities.
Exemplary
Consistently seeks out professional
development and learning
opportunities that improve practice
and build expertise of self and other
educators in instruction and
leadership. Is able to model this
element.
Indicator IV-C. Collaboration: Collaborates effectively with colleagues on a wide range of tasks.
IV-C. Elements
IV-C-1.
Professional
Collaboration
Unsatisfactory
Rarely and/or ineffectively
collaborates with colleagues;
conversations often lack focus on
improving student learning.
Needs Improvement
Does not consistently collaborate with
colleagues in ways that support
productive team effort.
Proficient
Consistently and effectively
collaborates with colleagues in
such work as developing
standards-based units, examining
student work, analyzing student
performance, and planning
appropriate intervention.
Exemplary
Supports colleagues to collaborate in
areas such as developing standardsbased units, examining student work,
analyzing student performance, and
planning appropriate intervention. 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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 12 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Indicator IV-D. Decision-Making: Becomes involved in schoolwide decision making, and takes an active role in school improvement
planning.
IV-D. Elements
IV-D-1.
Decision-Making
Unsatisfactory
Participates in planning and decision
making at the school, department,
and/or grade level only when asked
and rarely contributes relevant ideas
or expertise.
Needs Improvement
May participate in planning and
decision making at the school,
department, and/or grade level but
rarely contributes relevant ideas or
expertise.
Proficient
Exemplary
Consistently contributes relevant
ideas and expertise to planning
and decision making at the school,
department, and/or grade level.
I In planning and decision-making at
the school, department, and/or grade
level, consistently contributes ideas
and expertise that are critical to
school improvement efforts. Is able to
model this element.
Indicator IV-E. Shared Responsibility: Shares responsibility for the performance of all students within the school.
IV-E. Elements
IV-E-1.
Shared
Responsibility
Unsatisfactory
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Rarely reinforces schoolwide
behavior and learning expectations
for all students and/or makes a limited
contribution to their learning by rarely
sharing responsibility for meeting their
needs.
Within and beyond the classroom,
inconsistently reinforces schoolwide
behavior and learning expectations
for all students, and/or makes a
limited contribution to their learning by
inconsistently sharing responsibility
for meeting their needs.
Within and beyond the classroom,
consistently reinforces schoolwide
behavior and learning expectations
for all students, and contributes to
their learning by sharing
responsibility for meeting their
needs.
Exemplary
Individually and with colleagues
develops strategies and actions that
contribute to the learning and
productive behavior of all students at
the school. 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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 13 of 14
Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching Practice: Teacher Rubric
Indicator IV-F.
IV-F. Elements
Professional Responsibilities: Is ethical and reliable, and meets routine responsibilities consistently.
Unsatisfactory
Needs Improvement
Proficient
Exemplary
IV-F-1.
Judgment
Demonstrates poor judgment and/or
discloses confidential student
information inappropriately.
Sometimes demonstrates
questionable judgment and/or
inadvertently shares confidential
information.
Demonstrates sound judgment
reflecting integrity, honesty,
fairness, and trustworthiness and
protects student confidentiality
appropriately.
Demonstrates sound judgment and
acts appropriately to protect student
confidentiality, rights and safety. Is
able to model this element.
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.‖
Effective teaching practice rubric adopted from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
page 14 of 14
Appendices
Appendix C: Evidence Collection Guide
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 standardsbased units of instruction consisting of well-structured lessons with measurable
outcomes.
I-A. Elements
Proficient
Potential Evidence
I-A-1.
Subject Matter
Knowledge
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.
I-A-2.
Child and
Adolescent
Development
Demonstrates knowledge of the
developmental levels of students
in the classroom and the different
ways these students learn by
providing differentiated learning
experiences that enable all
students to progress toward
meeting intended outcomes.
I-A-3.
Rigorous
StandardsBased Unit
Design
Designs units of instruction with
measurable outcomes and
challenging tasks requiring
higher-order thinking skills that
enable students to learn the
knowledge and skills defined in
state standards/local curricula.
I-A-4.
Well-Structured
Lessons
Develops well-structured lessons
with challenging, measurable
objectives and appropriate
student engagement strategies,
pacing, sequence, activities,
materials, resources,
technologies, and grouping.
Examples / Evidence of:
 Instructional calendars
 Curriculum maps
 Unit plans with:
o Measurable outcomes
o Tasks requiring higher-order thinking
o Alignment with curriculum / State standards
 Lesson plans that:
o Are well-structured
o Have measurable and explicit objectives / goals
o Provide differentiated learning
o Include scaffolding and modeling
o Have appropriate pacing, sequence, activities,
materials, assessments, resources, technologies, and
grouping
o Are submitted in a consistent and timely fashion
 Connection of key concepts and ideas across lessons
and units
 Pacing guides
 Alignment with curriculum standards (e.g. checklist of
curriculum standards)
 Alignment of curriculum vertically across grades and
horizontally across content
 Explicit use of SMART goals (instructional goals, unit
goals, class goals, student goals, etc.)
 Posted essential questions
 Posted lesson objectives and agenda
 Plans for differentiation – instructional strategies that
address different student learning needs
 Thoughtful grouping of students
Appendix C: Evidence Collection Guide
Page C-1
Appendices
Indicator I-B.
I-B.
Elements
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.
Proficient
Potential Evidence
I-B-1.
Variety of
Assessment
Methods
Designs and administers a variety
of informal and formal methods
and assessments, including
common interim assessments, to
measure each student’s learning,
growth, and progress toward
achieving state/local standards.
Examples / Evidence of:
 Pre-assessments
 Multiple common formative assessments
 Summative assessments
 Variety of assessments that link to student learning goals
and standards
I-B-2.
Adjustment to
Practice
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.
Indicator I-C.
I-C.
Elements
Analysis: Analyzes data from assessments, draws conclusions, and shares them
appropriately.
Proficient
I-C-1.
Analysis and
Conclusions
Individually and with colleagues,
draws appropriate conclusions
from a thorough analysis of a
wide range of assessment data to
improve student learning.
I-C-2.
Sharing
Conclusions
With Colleagues
Regularly shares with appropriate
colleagues (e.g., general
education, special education, and
English learner staff) conclusions
about student progress and seeks
feedback from them about
instructional or assessment
practices that will support
improved student learning.
I-C-3.
Sharing
Conclusions
With Students
Based on assessment results,
provides descriptive feedback
and engages students and
families in constructive
conversation that focuses on how
students can improve their
performance.
Appendix C: Evidence Collection Guide
Potential Evidence
Examples / Evidence of:
 Data collection
 Use of student learning data to adjust instruction and
correct student deficiencies in learning
 Collection and use of data (e.g., student inquiries,
collaboration with other teachers) to better understand
students and help them individually
 Charting student progress toward learning goals and
State standards
 Sharing of data with appropriate colleagues to adjust
instructional or assessment practices)
 Use of data to provide feedback to students and families
Page C-2
Appendices
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.
II-A.
Elements
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.
Proficient
II-A-1.
Quality of Effort
and Work
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.
II-A-2.
Student
Engagement
Consistently uses instructional
practices that are likely to
motivate and engage most
students during the lesson.
II-A-3.
Meeting Diverse
Needs
Uses appropriate practices,
including tiered instruction and
scaffolds, to accommodate
differences in learning styles,
needs, interests, and levels of
readiness, including those of
students with disabilities and
English learners.
Appendix C: Evidence Collection Guide
Potential Evidence
Examples / Evidence of:
 Frequent posting of exemplars of student work
 Student work with rubrics
 Multiple student engagement strategies (e.g. technology,
group work, pair exercises, stand-up movement activities)
 Plans for room arrangement to enhance student learning
and engagement
 Instructional and communication strategies demonstrating
an understanding of the diverse learning needs of
students (e.g. flexible grouping, accessible technology,
hands-on, text, tired activities, projects)
 IEP implementation and collaboration
 Appropriate accommodations for special needs and ELL
students
 Learning styles inventories
 Consistent intervention and remediation for advanced and
struggling learners
 Examples of differentiated student products
 Various methods of checking for understanding (e.g.
written student examples, thumbs-up-thumbs-down, donow’s, turn and talk, exit slips, etc.)
 Various methods of questioning (e.g. scaffolding, etc.)
Page C-3
Appendices
Indicator II-B.
II-B.
Elements
Learning Environment: Creates and maintains a safe and collaborative learning
environment that motivates students to take academic risks, challenge themselves,
and claim ownership of their learning.
Proficient
Potential Evidence
II-B-1.
Safe Learning
Environment
Uses rituals, routines, and
appropriate responses that create
and maintain a safe physical and
intellectual environment where
students take academic risks and
most behaviors that interfere with
learning are prevented.
II-B-2.
Collaborative
Learning
Environment
Develops students’ interpersonal,
group, and communication skills
and provides opportunities for
students to learn in groups with
diverse peers.
II-B-3.
Student
Motivation
Consistently creates learning
experiences that guide students
to identify their strengths,
interests, and needs; ask for
support when appropriate; take
academic risks; and challenge
themselves to learn.
Examples / Evidence of:
 Classroom management plans / log of strategies used to
foster positive classroom climate (e.g. starting and ending
routines)
 Discipline plans
 Incentive plans
 Classroom rules and consequences
 Individual student behavior plans
 Frequency of discipline referrals and office calls
 Positive and/or negative student referrals
 Parent complaints that have been shared with teacher
 Strategies for student engagement (e.g. cold calling,
group discussions, use of wait time, written student
responses)
Indicator II-C.
II-C.
Elements
Cultural Proficiency: Actively creates and maintains an environment in which
students’ diverse backgrounds, identities, strengths, and challenges are respected.
Proficient
II-C-1.
Respects
Differences
Consistently uses strategies and
practices that are likely to enable
students to demonstrate respect
for and affirm their own and
others’ differences related to
background, identity, language,
strengths, and challenges.
II-C-2.
Maintains
Respectful
Environment
Anticipates and responds
appropriately to conflicts or
misunderstandings arising from
differences in backgrounds,
languages, and identities.
Appendix C: Evidence Collection Guide
Potential Evidence
Examples / Evidence of:
 Culturally appropriate instructional materials
 Strategies to promote acceptance (e.g., celebrates
student achievement, facilitates student collaboration,
and encourages learning about cultural differences)
 Knowledge of the interests or cultural heritage of each
student
 Strategies used to construct a culturally appropriate
learning environment
Page C-4
Appendices
Indicator II-D.
II-D. Elements
Expectations: Plans and implements lessons that set clear and high expectations and
also make knowledge accessible for all students.
Proficient
II-D-1.
Clear
Expectations
Clearly communicates and
consistently enforces specific
standards for student work, effort,
and behavior.
II-D-2.
High
Expectations
Effectively models and reinforces
ways that students can master
challenging material through
effective effort, rather than having
to depend on innate ability.
II-D-3.
Access to
Knowledge
Consistently adapts instruction,
materials, and assessments to
make challenging material
accessible to all students,
including English learners and
students with disabilities.
Appendix C: Evidence Collection Guide
Potential Evidence
Examples / Evidence of:
 Goals and expectations made explicit to students
 Student work toward goals with feedback demonstrating
high expectations
 Rubrics or scales for students to assess work with an
exemplar
 Variety of learning methods given to students to meet
expectations
 Adapted instructional material / lesson plans to allow
English learners and students with disabilities to master
the material
Page C-5
Appendices
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-A.
III-A. Elements
III-A-1.
Parent/Family
Engagement
Indicator III-B.
III-B. Elements
Engagement: Welcomes and encourages every family to become active participants in
the classroom and school community.
Proficient
Uses a variety of strategies to
support every family to
participate actively and
appropriately in the classroom
and school community.
Proficient
Consistently provides parents
with clear, user-friendly
expectations for student learning
and behavior.
III-B-2.
Curriculum
Support
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.
III-C.
Elements
Examples / Evidence of:
 Strategies to engage families in classroom activities,
meetings, and planning
 Parental involvement in the school community
Collaboration: Collaborates with families to create and implement strategies for
supporting student learning and development both at home and at school.
III-B-1.
Learning
Expectations
Indicator III-C.
Potential Evidence
Potential Evidence
Examples / Evidence of:
 Student learning and behavior expectations sent to
parents
 Assistance provided to parents to help with their
children’s learning
 Solutions offered to problems presented by parents
 Partnerships with parents to enhance student success
 Updates sent to parents regarding curriculum
 Appropriate involvement of parents of students with
special needs or limited English proficiency
Communication: Engages in regular, two-way, and culturally proficient
communication with families about student learning and performance.
Proficient
III-C-1.
Two-Way
Communication
Regularly uses two-way
communication with families
about student performance and
learning and responds promptly
and carefully to communications
from families.
III-C-2.
Culturally
Proficient
Communication
Always communicates
respectfully with families and
demonstrates understanding of
and sensitivity to different
families’ home language, culture,
and values.
Appendix C: Evidence Collection Guide
Potential Evidence
Examples / Evidence of:
 Log of two-way communication with parents: emails,
phone calls, letters, memos, etc.
 Culturally appropriate communication
 Parent responses
 Parent conference notes
 Progress reports
 Report cards
 Reports to parents regarding student expectations,
progress and/or concerns
 Use of newsletters to parents
Page C-6
Appendices
Standard IV: Professional Culture. The teacher promotes the learning and growth of all students
through ethical, culturally proficient, skilled, and collaborative practice.
Indicator IV-A.
IV-A. Elements
Reflection: Demonstrates the capacity to reflect on and improve the educator’s own
practice, using informal means as well as meetings with teams and work groups to
gather information, analyze data, examine issues, set meaningful goals, and develop
new approaches in order to improve teaching and learning.
Proficient
IV-A-1.
Reflective
Practice
Regularly reflects on the
effectiveness of lessons, units,
and interactions with students,
both individually and with
colleagues, and uses insights
gained to improve practice and
student learning.
IV-A-2.
Goal Setting
Proposes challenging,
measurable professional practice,
team, and student learning goals
that are based on thorough selfassessment and analysis of
student learning data.
Indicator IV-B.
IV-B. Elements
IV-B-1.
Professional
Learning and
Growth
Potential Evidence
Examples / Evidence of:
 Self-assessments
 SMART student learning goals and professional practice
goals based on self-assessment and analysis of student
learning data
 Adjusting instruction and practice based on regular
reflection
Professional Growth: Actively pursues professional development and learning
opportunities to improve quality of practice or build the expertise and experience to
assume different instructional and leadership roles.
Proficient
Consistently seeks out and
applies, when appropriate, ideas
for improving practice from
supervisors, colleagues,
professional development
activities, and other resources to
gain expertise and/or assume
different instruction and
leadership responsibilities.
Appendix C: Evidence Collection Guide
Potential Evidence
Examples / Evidence of:
 Seeking additional observations and/or feedback from
supervisors and colleagues
 Log of professional development activities
 Work products developed as a result of professional
development
 Seeking additional certification
 Use of mentor, lead teacher, and other outside support
staff
Page C-7
Appendices
Indicator IV-C.
IV-C. Elements
IV-C-1.
Professional
Collaboration
Indicator IV-D.
Collaboration: Collaborates effectively with colleagues on a wide range of tasks.
Proficient
Consistently and effectively
collaborates with colleagues in
such work as developing
standards-based units, examining
student work, analyzing student
performance, and planning
appropriate intervention.
Proficient
IV-D-1.
Decision-Making
Consistently contributes relevant
ideas and expertise to planning
and decision making at the
school, department, and/or grade
level.
IV-E. Elements
IV-E-1.
Shared
Responsibility
Examples / Evidence of:
 Attendance at planning / team meetings
 Grade level / departmental meeting notes
 Sharing new ideas with or mentoring other teachers to
enhance student learning
 Items the teacher has shared with colleagues (e.g.,
lesson plans, strategies, student work, data, etc.)
 Work products developed as a result of team work (e.g.
standards-based units, curriculum, etc.)
 Analysis of student performance with colleagues to plan
appropriate intervention
Decision-Making: Becomes involved in schoolwide decision making, and takes an
active role in school improvement planning.
IV-D. Elements
Indicator IV-E.
Potential Evidence
Potential Evidence
Examples / Evidence of:
 Contribution of ideas to grade-level, departmental,
school-level planning
Shared Responsibility: Shares responsibility for the performance of all students
within the school.
Proficient
Potential Evidence
Within and beyond the classroom,
consistently reinforces
schoolwide behavior and learning
expectations for all students, and
contributes to their learning by
sharing responsibility for meeting
their needs.
Examples / Evidence of:
 Suggestions made for school improvement
 Participation in school and district committees / initiatives
Appendix C: Evidence Collection Guide
Page C-8
Appendices
Indicator IV-F.
IV-F. Elements
Professional Responsibilities: Is ethical and reliable, and meets routine
responsibilities consistently.
Proficient
IV-F-1.
Judgment
Demonstrates sound judgment
reflecting integrity, honesty,
fairness, and trustworthiness and
protects student confidentiality
appropriately.
IV-F-2.
Reliability &
Responsibility
Consistently fulfills professional
responsibilities; is consistently
punctual and reliable with
paperwork, duties, and
assignments; and is rarely late or
absent from school.
Appendix C: Evidence Collection Guide
Potential Evidence
Examples / Evidence of:
 Record of teacher attendance and punctuality
 Substitute teacher folders
 Timely completion of paperwork, records, duties, etc.
 Sound judgment regarding student confidentiality
Page C-9
Appendices
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ Topics:
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-14
Appendices
Educator Evaluation Regulations (603 CMR 35.00)
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-1
Appendices
Springfield Public Schools Effective Educator Development System
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-2
Appendices
Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-3
Appendices
Goal Setting & Plan Development
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-4
Appendices
Implementation of the Plan
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-5
Appendices
Formative Assessment & Evaluation
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-6
Appendices
Summative Evaluation
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-7
Appendices
Student Learning, Growth, and Achievement
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-8
Appendices
ESE Support for Educator Evaluation
Error! Reference source not found.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-9
Educator Evaluation Regulations (603 CMR 35.00)
What is the legal basis for the new framework and where can I find information on its
requirements?
The regulations on educator evaluation were adopted pursuant to BESE's statutory authority
and consistent with existing statutory requirements: M.G.L. c.69, sec. 1B and c.71 sec. 38. More
details on the requirements of the new regulations are available on ESE's educator evaluation
website (http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval). In particular, please see the Regulations for the
Evaluation of Educators, 603 CMR 35.00, the Overview of Key Features of the regulations
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/101511Overview.pdf).
To whom do the new educator evaluation regulations apply?
The new regulations apply to all teachers, principals, superintendents, and other staff in
positions that require a teacher, specialist, professional support personnel, or administrative
license.
What is the timeline for implementing the new regulations?
The implementation schedule for the new regulations is as follows:


All Level 4 schools will adopt and implement the new educator evaluation system for
the 2011-2012 school year.
All non-Level 4 schools shall adopt and implement the new educator evaluation
system for the 2012-2013 school year.
By September 2013, Springfield Public Schools will need to identify and report to ESE a districtwide set of student performance measures for each grade and subject that permit a comparison
of student learning gains. ESE will provide guidance for developing and using these measures
by July 2012. Until these measures are identified and at least two years of data are available,
educators' impact on student learning outcomes will not be rated as high, moderate, or low.
What types of stakeholder feedback must be incorporated into educator evaluations?
Starting in the 2013-2014 school year, SPS must collect student feedback for all educator
evaluations and staff feedback for administrator evaluations. By July 1, 2013, ESE will provide
guidance on collecting and analyzing this feedback as well as protecting confidentiality. The
regulations do not require parent feedback as an element of educator evaluation. However, the
regulations commit ESE to studying the feasibility of including parent feedback in educator
evaluations, with a report and recommendations to be issued by July 1, 2013.
Are video observations allowed by the new regulations?
No. The negotiated agreement does not give provisions for the use of videos for the purpose of
observations.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-10
Will data on educator evaluation be made public?
Evaluation data for all educators, except superintendents, will not be made public. The
regulations guarantee that any information concerning an educator's formative assessment or
summative evaluation is considered personnel information and is not subject to disclosure under
the public records law. However, aggregate data that do not identify individual educators may
be made public.
As for superintendents, the Open Meeting Law carves out an exception from the Public Records
Law for ―materials used in a performance evaluation of an individual bearing on his professional
competence,‖ that were created by members of a public body and used during a meeting. See
G.L. c. 30A, s.22(e). Individual evaluations created and used by members of a public body for
the purpose of evaluating an employee are public records.
Will ESE require submission of formative as well as summative ratings?
In most instances no. Ratings on formative assessments will not be reported, but ratings on
formative evaluations will be. Under the regulations, only experienced educators who are on
two-year Self-Directed Growth Plans receive formative evaluations. These are completed at the
end of the first year of their two-year plan.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-11
Springfield Public Schools Effective Educator Development System (SEEDS)
What opportunities were there for educators in the creation of tools for SEEDS?
SEEDS is a slight adaptation of the Model System, which was developed by ESE. To develop
the model system, ESE worked with 11 early adopter districts,1 10 districts implementing the
framework in their Level 4 schools,2 and 4 education collaboratives chosen as pilot sites for
early implementation.3 ESE engaged a wide range of stakeholders from state associations, as
well.4
1
Ashland, Attleboro, Everett, Franklin, Greater Lawrence Regional Vocational Technical High School, Mashpee,
Reading, Revere, Wachusett, Wareham and Whitman-Hansen
2
Boston, Chelsea, Fall River, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn, New Bedford, Springfield and Worcester
3
BiCounty, Collaborative for Educational Services, Lower Pioneer Valley, and South Coast
4
State associations whose representatives worked with ESE staff include, in alphabetical order: American Federation
of Teachers, Massachusetts (AFT-MA), Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC), Massachusetts
School Counselors Association (MASCA), Massachusetts Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development
(MASCD), Massachusetts Association of School Personnel Association (MASPA), Massachusetts Association of
School Superintendents (MASS), Massachusetts Association of Vocational Administrators (MAVA), Massachusetts
Elementary School Principals Association (MESPA), Massachusetts School Nurses Organization (MSNO),
Massachusetts Secondary School Administrators Association (MSSAA), Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA),
Massachusetts Association of Vocational Administrators (MAVA).
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-12
Self-Assessment & Goal Proposal
What is the Evaluator’s role in the self-assessment process?
Self-assessments are a critical moment for Educators to take ownership of the process. Selfassessments are completed entirely by the Educator, not the Evaluator. The Evaluator will
review the self-assessments and use them as reference during the plan development process.
The Evaluator need not edit or revise the self-assessments.
What is the Evaluator’s role in goal setting?
During the self-assessment process, the Educator will have an opportunity to set proposed
goals to share with the Evaluator. The Evaluator will then review the proposed goals and work
with the Educators to refine the goals as needed, to ensure that the goals are SMART and
aligned with school/district priorities.
Why are team goals important? Are team goals necessary?
The new regulations require that both educators and evaluators consider team goals; goals can
be individual, team, or a combination of both. Setting grade level, department, or other team
goals—both for student learning and professional practice—promotes alignment and coherence,
focuses effort, and fosters professional collaboration and cooperation, thus enhancing
opportunities for professional growth. Team goals also ease the evaluator’s burden of assessing
and supporting a high volume of individual educators’ goals. Team goals can also propose a
common outcome and measure, but identify differentiated responsibilities and actions for
members.
How do you determine the teams for goal setting purposes?
Teams may be organized around department, grade level, subject-area, or other groups of
Educators who share responsibility for student learning and results.
Do the Educators need to give themselves a rating on the self-assessment?
No, the Educators are not expected to give themselves an overall rating. However, to aid
meaningful self-assessment, the Self-Assessment and Goal Setting Form has been designed to
give Educators an opportunity to score themselves and provide notes on the individual
Standards and Indicators of effective teaching.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-13
Goal Setting & Plan Development
What is the Evaluator’s role in plan development?
The Evaluator’s role in plan development varies with the type of Plan that the Educator is
assigned (in accordance with the Educator’s summative rating):
 The Self-Directed Growth Plan is developed by the Educator
 The Directed Growth Plan is developed by both the Educator and the Evaluator
 The Improvement Plan is developed by the Evaluator
 The Developing Educator Plan is developed by both the Educator and the Evaluator
If the Educator did not get a rating last year, how should an Educator Plan be assigned?
Due to various reasons (e.g. maternity leave, health leave, etc.), an Educator may not have
been evaluated the previous year. In such cases, the Educator Plan should be assigned based
on the most recent rating the Educator received.
Which Educator Plan should be assigned to Educators who have transferred from
another school within the district?
Transferring Educators should be placed on an Educator Plan based on the most recent rating
received from his/her previous school.
Can the Evaluator override the summative rating and place the Educator on a Plan that
does not correspond to the summative rating?
In the first year of transition, all SPS Educators will be placed on Educator Plans based on the
agreed upon algorithm to map all Educators to a Plan from the old system to the new SEEDS.
At the discretion of the Evaluator, the Educator may be upgraded to a higher Plan but may not
be downgraded to a lower Plan.
Once all Educators have been operating in SEEDS for a year, the Educator Plan should map
directly from the summative rating the Educator receives. At the event of a significant change in
an Educator performance, the Evaluator may change the Educator Plan during the formative
assessment / evaluation process (see page 58 for more guidance).
Does the Evaluator need to wait until the summative evaluation to move an Educator to
another Plan?
No. Although in general, the Educator’s rating will stay unchanged during the formative
assessment / evaluation process, if there is significant change in the Educator’s performance,
the Evaluator may put the Educator on a new plan at the time of the formative assessment /
evaluation.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-14
Can I have more than one professional practice goal and one student learning goal?
The total number of goals may depend on the teams and departments of which the Educator is
a member, the professional judgment of the Educator, and guidance from the Evaluator. It will
be critical, however, that the Educators prioritize when proposing goals; the final goals should
be targeted, focused areas for improvement and aligned to district and school priorities.
How will educators serving in multiple roles be evaluated?
If an Educator serves in multiple roles (e.g., both a classroom teacher and a department head),
in many instances, it would be a burden to both the Educator and the Evaluator to conduct
separate evaluations for each role that an Educator might have. Rather than attempting to do
so, the district should agree on an Educator's primary role based on a review of the Educator's
course load and other assignments. The evaluation should be conducted based on what has
been determined as the Educator’s primary role (See page 40 for more information).
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-15
Implementation of the Plan
Is there a minimum or maximum number of observations that can be conducted?
There is a minimum number of observations but no maximum. For all Educators, there should
be a minimum of one announced observation per cycle. There should also be a minimum of one
unannounced observation per school year for all Educators, except for non-PTS Educators who
are considered for non-renewals. For non-renewals, there should be a minimum of two
unannounced observations per school year (see Observation Protocol on page 43). Evaluators
are encouraged to conduct unannounced observations frequently to gain an accurate picture of
the Educator’s practice.
Why are ratings required on the unannounced observation forms?
Post-conferences are required for Educators who receive a Needs Improvement or
Unsatisfactory rating on any Standard during an unannounced observation. Therefore, a section
to indicate the observation rating has been included in the form to allow the Educator to know
whether he/she will be required to attend a post-conference.
Does everyone get feedback after unannounced observations?
Contractually, all Educators will be provided with at least brief written feedback within 10 school
days of the observation, but only the observations resulting in a Needs Improvement of
Unsatisfactory rating require a post-conference. But Evaluators are encouraged to give informal,
verbal feedback to all Educators, regardless of the observation ratings, to cultivate a culture of
continuous feedback and improvement.
How many unannounced observations are required to override the rating on an
announced observation?
Not one type of observation or evidence weighs more than another in the process of
determining the Educator’s summative rating. The summative rating will be determined based
on the Evaluator’s professional judgment and careful review of all evidence.
What if the Evaluator observes the Educator on an ―off‖ day for an unannounced
observation?
Unannounced observations are designed to give an Evaluator multiple opportunities to observe
the Educator to gain an accurate picture of the Educator’s practice. However, it will be
impossible for the Evaluator to observe every detail of the Educator’s practice; therefore, the
Educator also has the opportunity and responsibility to provide artifacts and evidence of practice
that the Evaluator might not have been able to observe.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-16
How can the Evaluator observe Standard III (Family and Community Engagement) and
Standard IV (Professional Culture) in the rubric?
Standards III and IV are difficult to observe in the classroom; therefore, the Educator is
responsible for collecting and presenting evidence to the Evaluator relating to fulfilling
professional responsibilities and family outreach and engagement.
Can the Educator collect and provide evidence for Standards I and II?
Yes, the Educator is encouraged to provide any evidence of professional practice that will help
the Evaluator to have a more accurate picture of the Evaluator’s performance. As such, the
Educator should collected and provide evidence relating to fulfilling any of the four Standards.
Can learning walks be used for evaluative purposes? How will the Educator be able to
distinguish between a learning walk vs. unannounced observation?
No. The only type of unannounced visits to the classroom that can be used for evaluative
purposes are unannounced observations. In order for the Educator to distinguish between an
evaluative unannounced and a learning walk, the Evaluator will be expected to notify the
Educator of the purpose of the visit at the time of entry into the classroom. If it’s an
unannounced observation, the Educator will initial the observation form as acknowledgement.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-17
Formative Assessment & Evaluation
What’s the difference between a formative assessment and a formative evaluation?
A formative assessment is a 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. A formative
evaluation functions similarly as a formative assessment but is an evaluation at the end of year
one specifically for educators on two-year self-directed plans used to arrive at a rating on the
Educator’s progress and/or performance.
What are the implications of the rating on formative assessments / evaluations?
The purpose of formative reviews is to provide a mid-cycle opportunity for Educators to receive
feedback and suggestions for improvement. In general, the ratings on formative
assessments/evaluations will remain unchanged from the Educator’s last summative rating.
However, occasionally, an educator’s performance may significantly change from the last
summative evaluation. When this happens, the evaluator and the educator may need to create
a new Educator Plan with goals targeted toward the specific areas in need of improvement.
How much evidence needs to have been collected for the formative
assessments/evaluations?
For formative assessments/evaluations, the Evaluator and Educator should be prepared to have
a meaningful conversation. It is not necessary to have evidence for every Indicator by the point
of formative assessment or evaluation, but educators and evaluators both need to have
sufficient evidence to be able to discuss progress. For evaluators, this should include feedback
based on observations of practice both in and out of the classroom. Evidence should include
both benchmark data on goals and evidence on Standards.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-18
Summative Evaluation
What are the guidelines for dismissal?
An Educator must be placed on an Improvement Plan prior to dismissal. At the conclusion of the
Improvement Plan, the following decisions can be made:
 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.
 If the Evaluator determines that the Educator is making substantial progress toward
proficiency, the Evaluator shall place the Educator on a Directed Growth Plan.
 If the Evaluator determines that the Educator is making some but not sufficient progress
toward proficiency, the Evaluator shall extend the Educator’s Improvement such that the
total Improvement Plan duration does not exceed one school year.
 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.
 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.
What should the Evaluator be looking for in unannounced observations?
The Evaluator should not be looking for everything in the rubric. In fact, the rubric should not be
used as an observation tool.
It is recommended that the Evaluator focus on the aspects of the Educator’s practice that are
related to the Educator’s goals, resulting in brief, focused feedback. Other experts have
suggested keeping in mind the mnemonic - ―SOTEL‖ (Safety, Objectives, Teaching,
Engagement, and Learning).
What are the conditions for receiving Professional Teacher Status?
In order to attain Professional Teacher Status, the Educator should achieve ratings of proficient
or exemplary on each Performance Standard and overall. A principal considering making an
employment decision that would lead to PTS for any Educator who has not been rated proficient
or exemplary on each performance standard and overall on the most recent evaluation shall
confer with the superintendent. The principal’s decision is subject to review and approval by the
superintendent.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-19
What are the conditions for receiving an overall proficient or exemplary rating?
To be rated proficient or exemplary overall, the Educator shall, at a minimum, have been rated
proficient on both Standards I and II - the Curriculum, Planning and Assessment and the
Teaching All Students Standards of Effective Teaching Practice.
How is the overall rating determined? Are there weights assigned to different
components?
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:
 Standard 1: Curriculum, Planning and Assessment
 Standard 2: Teaching All Students
 Standard 3: Family and Community Engagement
 Standard 4: Professional Culture
 Attainment of Professional Practice Goal(s)
 Attainment of Student Learning Goal(s)
No weights are assigned to any particular component.
Are Evaluators expected to provide a rating for each element and/or indicator?
No, Evaluators are only expected to provide a rating on each of the four Standards, as well as
an overall rating.
Who can be an Evaluator?
Any person designated by a superintendent who has primary or supervisory responsibility for
observation and evaluation of Unit A personnel. 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.
Will student and/or staff feedback be incorporated in evaluations?
Starting in 2013-14, additional evidence relevant to one or more performance standards will
include student feedback and, for administrators, staff feedback. The regulations call on ESE to
provide direction for collecting and using student and staff feedback by July 1, 2013.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-20
Student Learning, Growth, and Achievement
How are student learning, growth, and achievement incorporated into educator
evaluation under the new state framework?
Student learning is incorporated into the new framework in the following ways:
Each educator must include at least one student learning goal and one professional practice
goal in his/her Educator Plan. Attainment of the goal is considered in the educator's summative
evaluation.
Statewide, district, and classroom-based measures of student learning, growth and
achievement are a category of evidence used in ratings of practice (along with observations of
practice and other evidence relevant to one or more of the standards).
A separate determination of the educator's impact on student learning, growth, and
achievement (high, moderate, or low) will be made based on a review of trends and patterns
using at least two measures that are comparable at the state or district level across grades and
subjects. MCAS Student Growth Percentile Scores and MEPA gain scores must be used as
measures where available and applicable.
ESE will issue guidance on the determination of the educator's impact on student learning via
district determined measures by July 2012 for implementation in the 2013-14 school year. Until
such measures are identified and data is available for at least two years, educators will not be
assessed as having high, moderate, or low impact on student learning outcomes consistent with
603 CMR 35.09(3).
How will student learning, growth, and achievement be assessed for caseload educators
- e.g., nurses and counselors?
For educators whose primary role is not as a classroom teacher, the appropriate measures of
the educator's contribution to student learning, growth, and achievement will be set by the
district. ESE is preparing guidance, to be issued by July 2012, to assist districts in this
endeavor.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-21
ESE Support for Educator Evaluation
Will ESE be developing additional guidance and tools?
Yes. By July 2012, ESE will issue guidance on developing and using district-determined
measures of student learning and using the results of these measures, along with MCAS
Growth and MEPA, when available, to rate educators' impact on student learning, growth, and
achievement.
ESE will also issue guidance on the use of feedback from students for both teachers and
administrators and from feedback from staff for administrators by July 2013. The regulations
require ESE to review the feasibility of collecting parent feedback, as well, and to report on its
findings and recommendations on or before July 2013.
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
Page D-22
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Language
Article ___
Table of Contents
(1)
Purpose of Educator Evaluation
(2)
Definitions
(3)
Evidence Used in Evaluation
(4)
Rubric
(5)
Evaluation Cycle: Training
(6)
Evaluation Cycle: Annual Orientation
(7)
Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment
(8)
Evaluation Cycle: Goal Setting and Educator Plan Development
(9)
Evaluation Cycle : Observation of Practice and Examination of Artifacts – Educators without
PTS
(10)
Evaluation Cycle: Observation of Practice and Examination of Artifacts – Educators with
PTS
(11)
Observations
(12)
Evaluation Cycle: Formative Assessment
(13)
Evaluation Cycle : Formative Evaluation for Two-Year Self-Directed Plans Only
(14)
Evaluation Cycle: Summative Evaluation
(15)
Educator Plans : General
(16)
Educator Plans: Developing Educator Plan
(17)
Educator Plans: Self-Directed Growth Plan
(18)
Educator Plans: Directed Growth Plan
(19)
Educator Plans: Improvement Plan
(20)
Timelines
(21)
Career Advancement
(22)
Rating Impact on Student Learning Growth
(23)
Using Student feedback in Educator Evaluation
(24)
Transition from Existing Evaluation System
(25)
General Provisions
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-1 of 22
1)
Purpose of Educator Evaluation
A.
Driving principles of this evaluation and development system are that teachers are the
most important resource of the school system and of the Springfield community, that
teachers have the most important impact on the success and growth of student learning
and that teachers should have the opportunity to demonstrate their professional
contributions to student learning and to the school system in a variety of ways.
i)
2)
The primary goals of the Springfield Public Schools Educator Effectiveness and
Development System (SEEDS) are:
(a)
To observe and assess the quality of teaching practices and technical
skills in the classroom as defined by the agreed upon rubric;
(b)
To assess the demonstration of professional responsibility of teachers
toward students, colleagues, parents and community members;
(c)
To assess the improved impact of teaching on student learning;
(d)
To provide continuous professional growth opportunities for teachers and
career development opportunities.
B.
This contract language is 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.
C.
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).
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.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-2 of 22
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; and additional evidence relevant to one
or more Standards of Effective Teaching Practice (603 CMR 35.03).
E.
*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.
F.
*Educator(s): Inclusive term that applies to all classroom teachers and caseload
educators, unless otherwise noted.
G.
*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.
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
school 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
preceding the next school year.
H.
*ESE: The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
I.
*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‖).
J.
*Evaluator: Any person designated by a superintendent who has primary or supervisory
responsibility for observation and evaluation of Unit A personnel. The superintendent is
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-3 of 22
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 developing 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 outset of each new evaluation
cycle. The Evaluator(s) may be changed upon notification in writing to the
Educator.
K.
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.
L.
*Experienced Educator: An educator with Professional Teacher Status (PTS).
M.
*Family: Includes students’ parents, legal guardians, foster parents, or primary
caregivers.
N.
*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.
O.
*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.
P.
*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.
Q.
*Measurable: That which can be classified or estimated in relation to a scale, rubric, or
standards.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-4 of 22
R.
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.
S.
*Observation: A data gathering process that includes notes and judgments made during
one or more classroom or worksite visits(s) by the Evaluator and may include
examination of artifacts of practice including student work. An observation may occur in
person. 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.
T.
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 (―Springfield Education Association‖).
U.
*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.
V.
*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.
W.
*Professional Teacher Status: PTS is the status granted to an Educator pursuant to
M.G.L. c. 71, § 41.
X.
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.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-5 of 22
Y.
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)
*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
AA.
*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.
BB.
*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.
CC.
*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.
DD.
*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.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-6 of 22
3)
Evidence Used In Evaluation
The following categories of evidence shall be used in evaluating each Educator:
A.
B.
Multiple measures of student learning, growth, and achievement, which shall include:
i)
Measures of student progress on classroom assessments that are aligned with
the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks or other relevant frameworks and are
comparable within grades or subjects in a school;
ii)
At least two district-determined measures of student learning related to the
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks or the Massachusetts Vocational
Technical Education Frameworks or other relevant frameworks that are
comparable across grades and/or subjects district-wide. These measures may
include: portfolios, approved commercial assessments and district-developed
pre and post unit and course assessments, and capstone projects. One such
measure shall be the MCAS Student Growth Percentile (SGP) or Massachusetts
English Proficiency Assessment gain scores, if applicable, in which case at least
two years of data is required;
iii)
Measures of student progress and/or achievement toward student learning goals
set between the Educator and Evaluator for the school year or some other period
of time established in the Educator Plan; and
iv)
For Educators whose primary role is not as a classroom teacher, the appropriate
measures of the Educator’s contribution to student learning, growth, and
achievement set by the district. The measures set by the district should be based
on the Educator’s role and responsibility.
Judgments based on observations and artifacts of practice including:
i)
Unannounced observations of practice of at least 10 minutes.
ii)
Announced observations of practice of at least 30 minutes.
iii)
Examination of Educator work products.
iv)
Examination of student work samples.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-7 of 22
C.
Evidence relevant to one or more Performance Standards, including but not limited to:
i)
4)
Evidence compiled and presented by the Educator, including :
(a)
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)
Evidence of active outreach to and engagement with families;
ii)
Evidence of progress towards professional practice goal(s);
iii)
Evidence of progress toward student learning outcomes goal(s);
iv)
Student Feedback – see # 23 below; and
v)
Any other relevant evidence from any source that the Evaluator shares with the
Educator. Other relevant evidence could include information provided by other
administrators such as the superintendent.
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 district will use the agreed upon rubric..
5)
Evaluation Cycle: Training
A.
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.
B.
By November 1 of the first year of this agreement, all Educators shall complete a
professional learning activity about self-assessment and goal-setting satisfactory to the
st
superintendent or principal. Any Educator hired after the November 1 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 months 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.
st
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-8 of 22
6)
Evaluation Cycle: Annual Orientation
A.
7)
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 team/individual goal
setting, the educator plans, and the rubric.
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.
Evaluation Cycle: Self-Assessment
A.
B.
Completing the Self-Assessment
i)
The evaluation cycle begins with the Educator completing and submitting to the
st
Primary or Supervising Evaluator a self-assessment, preferably by October 1 .
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:
(1st)
At least one goal directly related to improving the Educator’s own
professional practice.
(2nd)
At least one goal directed related to improving student learning.
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 may meet with teams to
consider establishing team goals. Evaluators may participate in such meetings.
ii)
For Educators in their first year of practice, the Evaluator or his/her designee will
st
meet with each Educator, preferably by October 1 , 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.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-9 of 22
8)
iv)
For Educators with PTS and ratings of proficient or exemplary, the goals may be
team goals. 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. In addition, the goals may address shared grade level
or subject area team goals.
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. The
Plan also outlines actions the Educator must take to attain the goals established in the
Plan and benchmarks to assess progress. Goals may be developed by individual
Educators, by the Evaluator, or by teams, departments, or groups of Educators who have
the similar roles and/or responsibilities. See Sections 15-19 for more on Educator Plans.
B.
To determine the goals to be included in the Educator Plan, the Evaluator reviews the
goals the Educator has proposed in the Self-Assessment, using evidence of Educator
performance and impact on student learning, growth and achievement based on the
Educator’s self-assessment and other sources that Evaluator shares with the Educator.
The process for determining the Educator’s impact on student learning, growth and
achievement will be determined and negotiated after ESE issues guidance on this matter.
See #22, below.
C.
Educator Plan Development Meetings shall be conducted as follows:
D.
i)
Educators in the same school may meet with the Evaluator in teams and/or
individually at the end of the previous evaluation cycle or preferably by October
15th of the next academic year to develop their Educator Plan. 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
th
establish the Educator Plan should occur preferably by October 15 .
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.
The Evaluator completes the Educator Plan preferably by November 1st. The Educator
shall sign the 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 Plan.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-10 of 22
9)
10)
11)
Evaluation Cycle: Observation of Practice and Examination of Artifacts – Educators
without PTS
A.
The Educator shall have at least one announced observation during the evaluation cycle
using the protocol described in section 11B, below.
B.
The Educator shall have at least one unannounced observations during the school year.
Evaluation Cycle: Observation of Practice and Examination of Artifacts – Educators with
PTS
A.
The Educator whose overall rating is needs improvement, proficient or exemplary must
have at least one announced observation and one unannounced observation during the
evaluation cycle.
B.
The Educator whose overall rating is unsatisfactory must be observed according to the
Improvement Plan which must include unannounced observations. 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 four unannounced
observations. For Improvement Plans of six months or fewer, there must be no fewer
than two unannounced observations.
Observations
The Evaluator’s first observation of the non-PTS Educator should take place preferably by
th
November 30 . Observations required by the Educator Plan should be completed preferably 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.
A. Unannounced Observations
B.
i)
Unannounced observations may be in the form of partial or full-period classroom
visitations.
ii)
The Educator will be provided with at least brief written feedback from the
Evaluator within 10 school days of the observation. The written feedback shall
be delivered to the Educator in person, by email, placed in the Educator’s
mailbox or mailed to the Educator’s home.
iii)
A post-observation conference must be provided if an observation results in a
needs improvement or unsatisfactory rating or based on Educator request.
Announced Observations
i)
All Educators shall have at least one Announced Observation per evaluation
cycle.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-11 of 22
12)
(a)
The Evaluator shall select the date and time (at least 5 school days’
notice will be provided to the Educator) 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, upon request of
either the Evaluator or Educator, the Evaluator and Educator shall meet
for a pre-observation conference. In lieu of a 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
(1st)
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.
(2nd)
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 10 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 10
school days of the post-observation conference. For any standard where
the Educator’s practice was found to be unsatisfactory or needs
improvement, the feedback must:
(1st)
Describe the basis for the Evaluator’s judgment.
(2nd)
Describe specific actions the Educator should take to improve
his/her performance.
(3rd)
Identify support and/or resources the Educator may use in
his/her improvement in the areas identified for improvement.
(4th)
State that the Educator is responsible for addressing the need
for improvement.
Evaluation Cycle: Formative Assessment
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.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-12 of 22
13)
B.
Formative Assessment 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 and ratings 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.
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 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. The educator may provide to the
evaluator additional evidence of the educator’s performances against the four
Performance Standards.
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.
F.
The Evaluator shall complete the Formative Assessment report and provide a copy to the
Educator. All Formative Assessment reports must be signed by the Evaluator and
delivered face-to-face, by email or to the Educator’s school mailbox or home.
G.
The Educator may reply in writing to the Formative Assessment report within 10 school
days of receiving the report.
H.
The Educator shall sign the Formative Assessment report by 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.
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.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-13 of 22
14)
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.
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. The educator may also provide
to the evaluator additional evidence of the educator’s performance against the four
Performance Standards.
D.
The Evaluator shall complete the Formative Evaluation report and provide a copy to the
Educator. All Formative Evaluation reports must be signed by the Evaluator and delivered
face-to-face, by email or to the Educator’s school mailbox or home.
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.
F.
The Educator may reply in writing to the Formative Evaluation report within 5 school days
of receiving the report.
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.
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 report must be written and provided to the
educator by June 1st.
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.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-14 of 22
15)
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.
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.
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 to the
Educator face-to-face, by email or to the Educator’s school mailbox or home no later than
st
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 1st.
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 1st. 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.
O.
A copy of the signed final Summative Evaluation report shall be filed in the Educator’s
personnel file.
Educator Plans – General
A.
All 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:
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-15 of 22
C.
16)
17)
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 benchmarks
to assess 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.
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.
Educator Plans: Developing Educator Plan
A.
The Developing Educator Plan is for all Educators without PTS, and, at the discretion of
the Evaluator, Educators with PTS in new assignments.
B.
The Educator shall be evaluated at least annually.
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 2013-2014 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.
C.
For Educators on a Self-Directed Growth Plan who have an overall rating of proficient or
exemplary, the Evaluator will place the Educator on a Self-Directed Growth Plan for the
next Evaluation Cycle.
D.
For Educators on a Self-Directed Growth Plan who have an overall rating of needs
improvement, the Evaluator will place the Educator on a Directed Growth Plan for the
next Evaluation Cycle.
E.
For Educators on a Self-Directed Growth Plan who have an overall rating of
unsatisfactory, the rating will be reviewed by a panel including a Chief Schools Officer
representative, a human resources representative, and the Deputy Superintendent (if
necessary). The panel may also request input from a representative from the academic
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-16 of 22
department. The panel’s judgment will be considered final and in cases where the panel
agrees that the rating should be unsatisfactory, the Evaluator will place the Educator on
an Improvement Plan for the next Evaluation Cycle.
18)
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 overall goal of the Directed Growth Plan is to help the educator improve
performance.
C.
The goals in the Plan must address areas identified as needing improvement as
determined by the Evaluator, following consultation with the Educator.
D.
The Evaluator shall complete a summative evaluation for the Educator at the end of the
period determined by the Plan, but at least annually, and in no case later than June 1st.
E.
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.
F.
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.
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 school 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.
C.
The Evaluator must complete a summative evaluation 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.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-17 of 22
F.
G.
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 Springfield Education
Association attend the meeting(s).
iii)
If the Educator consents, the Springfield Education Association will be informed
that an Educator has been placed on an Improvement Plan.
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 five
decisions must be made at the conclusion of the Improvement Plan:
(1st)
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.
(2nd)
If the Evaluator determines that the Educator is making
substantial progress toward proficiency, the Evaluator shall place
the Educator on a Directed Growth Plan.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-18 of 22
20.
(3rd)
If the Evaluator determines that the Educator is making some but
not sufficient progress toward proficiency, the Evaluator shall
extend the Educator’s Improvement such that the total
Improvement Plan duration does not exceed one school year.
(4th)
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.
(5th)
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.
Timelines (Dates in italics are provided as guidance)
Activity:
Completed By:
See Section:
Superintendent, principal or designee meets with
evaluators and educators to explain evaluation process
September 15
5 and 6
Evaluator meets with first-year educators to assist in
self-assessment and goal setting process
October 1
7
Evaluator meets with Educators in teams or individually
to establish Educator Plans (Educator Plan may be
established at Summative Evaluation Report meeting in
prior school year)
October 15
8
Evaluator completes Educator Plans
November 1
8
Evaluator should complete first observation of each nonPTS Educator
November 30
9 and 11
Educator submits evidence on parent outreach,
professional growth, progress on goals (and other
standards, if desired)
January 18*
12
Evaluator should complete mid-cycle Formative
Assessment Reports for Educators on one-year
Educator Plans
February 1
12
Evaluator holds Formative Assessment Meetings if
requested by either Evaluator or Educator
February 15
12
Educator submits evidence on parent outreach,
April 20*
14
Educator submits self-assessment and proposed goals
* or two weeks before Formative Assessment Report
date established by Evaluator
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-19 of 22
professional growth, progress on goals (and other
standards, if desired)
*or 4 weeks prior to Summative Evaluation Report date
established by evaluator
Evaluator completes Summative Evaluation Report
June 1
14
Evaluator meets with Educators whose overall
Summative Evaluation ratings are Needs Improvement
or Unsatisfactory
June 1
Evaluator meets with Educators whose ratings are
proficient or exemplary at request of Evaluator or
Educator
June 1
14
Educator signs Summative Evaluation Report and adds
response, if any within 5 school days of receipt
June 1
14
Activity:
Completed By:
See Section:
Evaluator completes unannounced observation(s)
Any time during
the 2-year
evaluation cycle
10 and 11
Evaluator completes Formative Evaluation Report
June 1 of Year 1
13
Evaluator conducts Formative Evaluation Meeting, if any
June 1 of Year 1
13
Evaluator completes Summative Evaluation Report
June 1 of Year 2
14
Evaluator conducts Summative Evaluation Meeting, if
any
June 1 of Year 2
14
Evaluator and Educator sign Summative Evaluation
Report
June 1 of Year 2
14
Educators with PTS on Two Year Plans
A)
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.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-20 of 22
21.
22.
Career Advancement
A)
In order to attain Professional Teacher Status, the Educator should achieve ratings of
proficient or exemplary on each Performance Standard and overall. A principal
considering making an employment decision that would lead to PTS for any Educator
who has not been rated proficient or exemplary on each performance standard and
overall on the most recent evaluation shall confer with the superintendent by May 1. The
principal’s decision is subject to review and approval by the superintendent.
B)
In order to qualify to apply for an Instructional Leadership Specialist position, Pupil
Services Leader position, or an Effective Educator Coach, the Educator must have had a
Summative Evaluation performance rating of proficient or exemplary for at least the
previous two years.
C)
Educators with PTS whose summative performance rating is exemplary and, after 201314 whose impact on student learning is rated moderate or high, shall be recognized and
rewarded with leadership roles, promotions, additional compensation, public
commendation or other acknowledgement as determined by the district through collective
bargaining.
Rating Impact on Student Learning Growth
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
this matter.
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.
Transition from Existing Evaluation System
A)
25.
The strategy to transition from the existing evaluation system to the new evaluation
system is included as an appendix.
General Provisions
A)
Only Educators who are licensed 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. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit an administrator’s ability to investigate
a complaint, or secure assistance to support an Educator.
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-21 of 22
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. The
Educator may have a Springfield Education Association representative present at this
meeting.
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. The next joint labormanagement evaluation team review is scheduled to begin June 1, 2013.
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 nonrenewal of an Educator, then no financial remedy or reinstatement shall issue if there was
substantial compliance.
Appendix
Non-Instructional
Principles
Instructional Principles
Educator Plan
Overall
Principal Judgment
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Educator
with PTS
Educator
without PTS
Exceeds
or Meets
0 does not meet indicators or
0 to 1 does not meet
indicators
Self-Directed
Growth
(2-year)
Developing
Exceeds
or Meets
1 does not meet indicator or
2 does not meet
indicators
Self-Directed
Growth
(1-year)
Developing
Principal holds discretion
to move educator to a
self-directed growth 2year plan
Exceeds
or Meets
2 or more does not meet indicators or
3 or more does not
meet indicators
Directed
Growth
Developing
Principal holds discretion
to move educator to a
self-directed growth 1year plan
Improvement
Developing
Not applicable
Developing
PIP
New (no
history)
Appendix E: Teacher and Caseload Educator Model Contract
Page E-22 of 22
Appendices
Appendix F: Setting SMART Goals1 Guide
Good goals help educators, schools, and districts improve. That is why the educator evaluation
regulations require educators to develop goals that are specific, actionable, and measurable. They
require, too, that goals be accompanied by action plans with benchmarks to assess progress.
This ―SMART‖ Goal framework is a useful tool that individuals and teams can use to craft effective goals
and action plans:
S
=
Specific and Strategic
M
=
Measurable
A
=
Action Oriented
R
=
Rigorous, Realistic, and Results-Focused (the 3 Rs)
T
=
Timed and Tracked
Goals with an action plan and benchmarks that have these characteristics are ―SMART.‖
A practical example some of us have experienced in our personal lives can make clear how this SMART
goal framework can help turn hopes into actions that have results.
First, an example of not being ―SMART‖ with goals: I will lose weight and get in condition.
Getting SMARTer: Between March 15 and Memorial Day, I will lose 10 pounds and be able to run 1 mile
nonstop.
The hope is now a goal, that meets most of the SMART Framework criteria:
It’s Specific and Strategic
= 10 pounds, 1 mile
It’s Measurable
= pounds, miles
It’s Action-oriented
= lose, run
It’s got the 3 Rs
= weight loss and running distance
It’s Timed
= 10 weeks
SMART enough: To make the goal really ―SMART,‖ though, we need to add an action plan and benchmarks.
They make sure the goal meets that final criteria, ―Tracked.‖ They also strengthen the other criteria,
especially when the benchmarks include ―process‖ benchmarks for tracking progress on the key actions
and ―outcome‖ benchmarks that track early evidence of change and/or progress toward the ultimate goal.
1
The SMART goal concept was introduced by G.T. Doran, A. Miller and J. Cunningham in There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way
to write management’s goals and objectives , Management Review 70 (11), AMA Forum, pp. 35-36. What Makes a
Goal “SMART”? also draws from the work of Ed Costa, Superintendent of Schools in Lenox; John D’Auria, Teachers
21; and Mike Gilbert, Northeast Field Director for MASC.
Appendix F: Setting SMART Goals
Page F-1
Appendices
Key Actions

Reduce my daily calorie intake to fewer than 1,200 calories for each of 10 weeks.

Walk 15 minutes per day; increase my time by 5 minutes per week for the next 4 weeks.

Starting in week 5, run and walk in intervals for 30 minutes, increasing the proportion of time
spent running instead of walking until I can run a mile, non-stop, by the end of week 10.
Benchmarks:

For process, maintaining a daily record of calorie intake and exercise

For outcome, biweekly weight loss and running distance targets (e.g., After 2 wks: 2 lbs/0
miles; 4 wks: 4 lbs/0 miles; 6 wks: 6lbs/.2 mi; 8 wks: 8 lbs/.4 miles)
S = Specific and Strategic
Goals need to be straightforward and clearly written, with sufficient specificity to determine whether or not
they have been achieved. A goal is strategic when it serves an important purpose of the school or district
as a whole and addresses something that is likely to have a big impact on our overall vision.
M = Measurable
If we can’t measure it, we can’t manage it. What measures of quantity, quality, and/or impact will we use
to determine that we’ve achieved the goal? And how will we measure progress along the way? Progress
toward achieving the goal is typically measured through ―benchmarks.‖ Some benchmarks focus on the
process: are we doing what we said we were going to do? Other benchmarks focus on the outcome: are
we seeing early signs of progress toward the results?
A = Action Oriented
Goals have active, not passive verbs. And the action steps attached to them tell us ―who‖ is doing ―what.‖
Without clarity about what we’re actually going to do to achieve the goal, a goal is only a hope with little
chance of being achieved. Making clear the key actions required to achieve a goal helps everyone see
how their part of the work is connected—to other parts of the work and to a larger purpose. Knowing that
helps people stay focused and energized, rather than fragmented and uncertain.
R = Rigorous, Realistic, and Results-Focused (the 3 Rs)
A goal is not an activity: a goal makes clear what will be different as a result of achieving the goal. A goal
needs to describe a realistic, yet ambitious result. It needs to stretch the educator, team, school, or district
toward improvement but not be out of reach. The focus and effort required to achieve a rigorous but
realistic goal should be challenging but not exhausting. Goals set too high will discourage us, whereas
goals set too low will leave us feeling ―empty‖ when it is accomplished and won’t serve our students well.
T = Timed
A goal needs to have a deadline. Deadlines help all of us take action. For a goal to be accomplished,
definite times need to be established when key actions will be completed and benchmarks achieved.
Tracking the progress we’re making on our action steps (process benchmarks) is essential: if we fall
behind on doing something we said we were going to do, we’ll need to accelerate the pace on something
else. But tracking progress on process outcomes isn’t enough. Our outcome benchmarks help us know
whether we’re on track to achieve our goal and/or whether we’ve reached our goal. Benchmarks give us a
way to see our progress and celebrate it. They also give us information we need to make mid-course
corrections.
Appendix F: Setting SMART Goals
Page F-2