Frequency of Evaluations: Massachusetts

2015 Identifying Effective Teachers Policy

Goal

The state should require annual evaluations of all teachers.

Meets a small part
Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2015). Frequency of Evaluations: Massachusetts results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/state/MA-Frequency-of-Evaluations-71

Analysis of Massachusetts's policies

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. 

Observations are required, but the state does not articulate how many are required. Formative assessments, which provide feedback on performance, are required at midyear. 

Citation

Recommendations for Massachusetts

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. 



State response to our analysis

Massachusetts was helpful in providing NCTQ with the facts necessary for this analysis. The state asserted that it rejects the suggestion that any aspect of its evaluation framework is a “mere formality.” Educators whose summative performance rating is exemplary or proficient and whose student impact rating is moderate or high are eligible to be placed on two-year self-directed growth plans. A two-year educator plan is quite distinct from being evaluated every two years. There is no “off-year” in Massachusetts. Educators on two-year plans are participating in evaluation activities for the full duration of their plans. They follow the same Five-Step Evaluation Cycle as educators on shorter plans, the activities of which are aligned with two school years. Formative evaluations occur at the end of year one and result in ratings that are reported to ESE.

Massachusetts added that with respect to new teachers, the framework includes a specific type of educator plan for educators in their first three years. The developing educator plan ensures that new educators receive the intensive support they need.







Last word

Regulation defines formative evaluation as "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." There is no assurance that this rating will reflect any student growth measures, or that it will result in valuable feedback. The state has submitted a link to the "Formative Evaluation Report Form," which requires progress reports on student learning goals and professional practice goals, as well as a rating for each standard. However, there is no indication on this form that student growth measures are evaluated. 

How we graded

Research rationale

Annual evaluations are standard practice in most professional jobs.
Although there has been much progress on this front recently, about half of the states still do not mandate annual evaluations of teachers who have reached permanent or tenured status. The lack of regular evaluations is unique to the teaching profession and does little to advance the notion that teachers are professionals.

Further, teacher evaluations are too often treated as mere formalities rather than as important tools for rewarding good teachers, helping average teachers improve and holding weak teachers accountable for poor performance. State policy should reflect the importance of evaluations so that teachers and principals alike take their consequences seriously.

Evaluations are especially important for new teachers.
Individuals new to a profession frequently have reduced responsibilities coupled with increased oversight. As competencies are demonstrated, new responsibilities are added and supervision decreases. Such is seldom the case for new teachers, who generally have the same classroom responsibilities as veteran teachers, including responsibility for the academic progress of their students, but may receive limited feedback on their performance. In the absence of good metrics for determining who will be an effective teacher before he or she begins to teach, it is critical that schools and districts closely monitor the performance of new teachers.

The state should specifically require that districts observe new teachers early in the school year. This policy would help ensure that new teachers get the support they need early and that supervisors know from the beginning of the school year which new teachers (and which students) may be at risk. Subsequent observations provide important data about the teacher's ability to improve. Data from evaluations from the teacher's early years of teaching can then be used as part of the performance-based evidence to make a decision about tenure.

Frequency of Evaluations: Supporting Research
For the frequency of evaluations in government and private industry, see survey results from Hudson Employment Index's report: "Pay and Performance in America: 2005 Compensation and Benefits Report" Hudson Group (2005).

For research emphasizing the importance of evaluation and observations for new teachers in predicting future success and providing support for teachers see, D. Staiger and J. Rockoff, "Searching for Effective Teachers with Imperfect Information." Journal of Economic Perspectives. Volume 24, No. 3, Summer 2010, pp. 97-118.