Skip To Main Content

Overview of Changes

The Educator Evaluation Review Committee worked for approximately 18 months to collect data from educators and leaders, research state regulations, investigate other school districts' evaluation models, analyze all the gathered information, and synthesize a set of recommendations aimed to improve upon the existing model of educator evaluation in Monomoy. At the conclusion of that work, the committee put together the following list of recommendations that were ultimately voted upon by the Unit A membership and the School Committee and approved to become the new process moving forward.

Recommendations:

  • Consolidate Form 1 (Self-Assessment), 2A (Goal Setting), and 2B-1 (Self-Directed/Developing Educator Plan Form) into newly developed Goal Setting and Educator Plan Form

    • This was done based upon feedback from educators and evaluators that three separate forms and three separate due dates at the beginning of the year made the process cumbersome, redundant, confusing and burdensome. Additionally, the components of the form were trimmed down to lessen the burden on educators completing the form and to focus on the essential elements necessary to having meaningful dialogue about educator goals. 

  • Adjust Timeline Document

    • These adjustments were made to reflect not only the feedback from educators about the existing process, but also to reflect changes proposed by this committee in other recommendations.

  • Transition to the 2018 Classroom Teacher Rubric

    • This recommendation is made after much discussion and research by the committee. The committee examined the 2018 rubric, compared it to the 2012 currently being utilized in the district, as well as the 2022-2023 rubrics currently in development and published here. The committee felt that the 2018 rubric more accurately reflects the expectations of the modern professional educator and serves as a bridge between where expectations are moving at the state level with the next iteration of the rubrics for effective teaching practices as well as the rubrics for effective leadership practices.

    • In adopting this rubric, the committee points out that we have made a slight adjustment to the original DESE rubric. Due to the fact that Indicator Standard II.C - Student Learning has “no associated elements or performance descriptors for the Student Learning Indicator” (DESE, 2018), and the fact that DESE has provided no further information on how schools should implement this indicator, the committee believes that it should be eliminated from use in Monomoy. Therefore, the committee determined it should be removed from the rubric utilized in the district and has presented this revised version of the rubric to be used in Monomoy.

  • Offer Unit A members in certain non-classroom teacher roles (i.e. counselors, librarians, nurses, psychologists, etc.) to work with evaluators to select an appropriate rubric for their role at the beginning of each evaluation cycle. 

    • This recommendation comes from feedback from the field that not all Unit A roles do the same work, and that similarly even some individuals in similar roles across the district (i.e. librarians) may have different responsibilities depending upon how they are utilized in respective buildings. Therefore, the application of role-specific rubrics (bottom of page) should be done collaboratively between the educator and evaluator depending upon the nature of the individual’s day-to-day responsibilities. This should occur during the goal-setting process. 

  • Implement New Streamlined Classroom Observation Checklist

    • This recommendation comes from the committee's work to better align the MRSD evaluation process with its stated purpose, “to promote student learning, growth, and achievement by providing Educators with feedback for improvement, enhanced opportunities for professional growth, and clear structures for accountability." The committee believes that this is done by streamlining feedback to educators to align with district’s priorities for instruction while also creating a feedback form that allows evaluators to provide feedback more frequently and efficiently.

    • There will be professional learning around these forms and the associated expectations provided both for evaluators and staff. 

  • Implement a Meeting Observation Feedback Form as Appropriate

    • This recommendation is derived from educator and evaluator feedback that recognized that many Unit A roles in the district have a significant portion of their job that include their participation in professional meetings. Some roles in the district rarely work directly with students in an observable manner at all. Therefore, in order to honor the work that these educators do and the value they serve to our district, this feedback document was created.

    • These roles include: Counselors, Psychologists, Team chairs, Nurses, Speech and Language Pathologists, Occupational Therapists, Reading/Math Specialists, Special Education Teachers, ELL Teachers, Career Education and Planning Coordinator

Corresponding CBA Revisions:  

  • Update the following on the “Blue Pages” in the Contract

    • In Definitions:

      • Remove: District-determined Measures

    • In Evaluation Cycle: Annual Orientation

      • Section A - Change “At the start of each school year” to read “By the end of the first staff meeting of the year”

    • In Evaluation Cycle:Self-Assessment

      • Section A - Make the following changes: The evaluation cycle begins with the Educator completing and submitting to the Primary Evaluator a self-assessment by the third Monday in October or within four weeks of the start of their employment at the school, whichever is later. 

    • In Evaluation Cycle: Goal Setting and Development of Educator Plan

      • Section C - Change two references to November 1 to November 3 

      • Section D - Change December 1 to read Second Monday in December

    • In Observations:

      • Make the following changes: The Evaluator’s first observation of the Non-PTS Educator should take place by November 15th. For PTS Educators, the evaluator’s first observation of the Educator should take place by January 31. 

    • In Evaluation Cycle: Formative Assessment

      • Section D - Make the following changes: By the third Monday in January (or Tuesday following a Holiday), no less than two weeks before the due date for the Formative Assessment report, which due date shall be collaboratively agreed upon by the Educator and the primary Evaluator, the Educator shall schedule a meeting with the Primary Evaluator to discuss their evidence or provide to the Primary…

      • Section F - Delete - “And delivered face to face”

    • In Evaluation Cycle: Formative Evaluation for Two Year Self-Directed Plans Only

      • Section C - Delete paragraph

      • Section D - Delete - “And delivered face to face”

    • In Evaluation Cycle: Summative Evaluation

      • Section F - Make the following changes: No less than four weeks before the due date for the Summative Evaluation report, which due date shall be established by the Primary Evaluator with written notice provided to the Educator, By the Friday before April vacation in the second year of their evaluation cycle, the Educator shall schedule a meeting with the Primary Evaluator to discuss their evidence or provide to the Primary…

    • Time Line:

      • Insert New timeline document linked above and remove existing document

Ratification:  

  • These recommendations were ratified by both the Unit A Bargaining Unit and the School Committee in the Spring of 2023.