2011 Identifying Effective Teachers Policy
The state should require annual evaluations of all teachers.
Regrettably, Massachusetts does not ensure that all teachers are evaluated annually.
Veteran teachers who receive a rating of "exemplary" or "proficient" coupled with a moderate or high impact on student learning must only be evaluated once every two years. All other teachers, including probationary teachers, must be evaluated annually.
Further, the state's policy does not include any guidelines on when evaluations for new teachers should occur.
603 CMR 35.00
Require annual formal evaluations for all teachers.
All teachers in Massachusetts should be evaluated annually, even those who score "proficient" or above with at least a moderate impact on student learning on the state's summative evaluation. Rather than treated as mere formalities, these teacher evaluations should serve as important tools for rewarding good teachers, helping average teachers improve and holding weak teachers accountable for poor performance.
Base evaluations on multiple observations.
To guarantee that annual evaluations are based on an adequate collection of information, Massachusetts should require multiple observations for all teachers, even those who have nonprobationary status.
Ensure that new teachers are observed and receive feedback early in the school year.
It is critical that schools and districts closely monitor the performance of new teachers. Massachusetts should ensure that its new teachers get the support they need and that supervisors know early on which new teachers may be struggling or at risk for unacceptable levels of performance.
Massachusetts asserted that under its newly adopted evaluation regulations, every teacher receives an evaluation every year, consistent with Race to the Top requirements. The state pointed out that "Exemplary" and "Proficient" teachers with moderate or high student growth receive a formative evaluation mid-cycle in their two-year evaluation plan, but that formative evaluation is designed to ensure that practice and impact remain at the appropriate levels. If an educator receives a formative evaluation that differs from the prior summative rating, the evaluator may place the educator on a different plan, appropriate to the new rating.
Massachusetts also contended that its new regulations set a higher bar for professional teacher status, or tenure. Professional teacher status may be granted only to educators rated proficient or exemplary on each performance standard. Further, all educator evaluations require multiple classroom observations, including unannounced observation. The five-step evaluation cycle required in the regulations engages all educators in early conferencing and goal setting with their evaluators, as well as a mid-cycle review to ensure that all educators—including novice teachers, in particular—receive early and regular feedback on their performance.
According to the state's new evaluation regulations, the mid-cycle formative evaluation is used to arrive at a rating on progress toward attaining the goals set forth in the education plans or performance on performance standards, or both. None of these articulated options ensures that student growth data will be required during that interim year.