Evaluation of Effectiveness: Massachusetts

Analysis of Massachusetts's policies

Although the state requires student performance data to be a factor, Massachusetts does not require that objective evidence of student learning be the preponderant criterion of its teacher evaluations. The state requires districts to either adopt the model system or develop one of their own that is consistent with the state's framework. 
By school year 2013-2014, Massachusetts requires its teacher evaluations to include "multiple measures of student learning, growth and achievement" as one category of evidence in teacher evaluations. The state defines these measures as student progress on classroom assessments that are aligned with the state's Curriculum Frameworks; student progress on learning goals; statewide growth measures, including the MCAS Student Growth Percentile and the Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPS); and district-determined measures of student learning across grade or subject. Student feedback is also required. 
The summative evaluation includes the evaluator's judgment of the teacher's performance against performance standards and the teacher's attainment of goals set forth in the teacher's plan. Four rating categories must be used: exemplary, proficient, needs improvement and unsatisfactory. To be rated proficient overall, teachers must at least be rated proficient on the "Curriculum, Planning and Assessment" and "Teaching All Students" standards. 
In addition to the summative performance rating, an impact rating of high, moderate or low is also determined based on at least two state or districtwide measures of student learning: the MCAS Student Growth Percentile and the Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA), when available; and additional district determined measures. The impact rating is discrete from the summative performance rating. 
Classroom observations are required. 

Citation

603 CMR 35.00

Recommendations for Massachusetts

Require instructional effectiveness to be the preponderant criterion of any teacher evaluation. 
Massachusetts falls short by failing to require that evidence of student learning be the most significant criterion. By keeping the impact measure wholly separate from the performance rating, it isn't clear that it is really a factor at all. 

The state should either require a common evaluation instrument in which evidence of student learning is the most significant criterion, or it should specifically require that student learning be the preponderant criterion in local evaluation processes. This can be accomplished by requiring objective evidence to count for at least half of the evaluation score or through other scoring mechanisms, such as a matrix, that ensure that nothing affects the overall score more. Whether state or locally developed, a teacher should not be able to receive a satisfactory rating if found ineffective in the classroom. 

Ensure that evaluations also include classroom observations that specifically focus on and document the effectiveness of instruction. 
Although Massachusetts requires classroom observations, the state should articulate guidelines that ensure that the observations focus on effectiveness of instruction. The primary component of a classroom observation should be the quality of instruction, as measured by student time on task, student grasp or mastery of the lesson objective and efficient use of class time.

State response to our analysis

Massachusetts was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis. The state asserted that its evaluation framework is structured differently from many other states in that it results in two evaluation ratings: a summative performance rating and an impact rating. The summative performance rating requires multiple measures of student learning, growth and achievement as one category of evidence, and also explicitly requires consideration of the fulfillment of student learning goal(s) as a factor in determining the final rating. 

Massachusetts added that student learning/growth/achievement is the sole criterion used to determine an impact rating (a rating of impact on student learning) of low, moderate or high. If a teacher is found to elicit less than a year's student growth in a year's time, based on multiple measures and multiple years of data, the teacher then receives an impact rating of low. While this may be coupled with a summative performance rating of proficient, the proficient performance rating would not change the low-impact rating. These two ratings work together to determine consequences for that educator, including a focus on that area of discrepancy. In addition, evaluators who assign a summative performance rating of proficient or above would then be assessed on their effectiveness as evaluators during their subsequent evaluation cycles.

Finally, Massachusetts argued that when taken together, these two ratings ensure that instructional effectiveness is the preponderant criterion of any teacher evaluation given that one rating is based solely on student learning (impact rating) and the other rating requires evidence of student learning in multiple ways, as both a category of evidence and fulfillment of student learning goals (summative performance rating).  

Last word

Massachusetts does not make it explicit that a teacher cannot be rated effective if he or she does not meet student growth targets. Treating these scores as two different entities, and using the summative evaluation as the basis to make personnel decisions, reinforces the fact that instructional effectiveness is not the most significant criterion in the state's teacher evaluation system. At best, the system is unclear on how to interpret and utilize the two separate ratings. At worst, it appears quite possible to virtually disregard the student impact measure.