Educators get annual report card; Worcester results are near state average
By Sara Schweiger TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
Sara.Schweiger@telegram.com
Sara.Schweiger@telegram.com
The state released educator performance ratings Thursday, providing a snapshot of where teachers, principals and administrators fell on a spectrum from exemplary to unsatisfactory in Year 2 of the state's revamped evaluation system.
Statewide, 94.6 percent of educators were ranked proficient or higher in 2013-14, up from 92.6 percent the previous year, while 4.8 percent were rated needs improvement, down from 6.8 percent, and .5 percent were rated unsatisfactory, down from .7 percent.
Of the 94.6 percent, 8.1 percent were rated exemplary and 86.5 percent were rated proficient. Tenured teachers were most likely to be rated proficient or exemplary, with 96.5 percent, followed closely by administrators with 96.4 percent and principals with 95.4 percent. Non-tenured teachers were last with 88.8 percent.
Statewide, 94.6 percent of educators were ranked proficient or higher in 2013-14, up from 92.6 percent the previous year, while 4.8 percent were rated needs improvement, down from 6.8 percent, and .5 percent were rated unsatisfactory, down from .7 percent.
Of the 94.6 percent, 8.1 percent were rated exemplary and 86.5 percent were rated proficient. Tenured teachers were most likely to be rated proficient or exemplary, with 96.5 percent, followed closely by administrators with 96.4 percent and principals with 95.4 percent. Non-tenured teachers were last with 88.8 percent.
"The vast majority of our teachers and administrators are solid, proficient," Mitchell D. Chester, commissioner of elementary and secondary education, said during a conference call with reporters.
In Worcester, 11 percent of educators were rated exemplary, 83.1 percent satisfactory, 5.2 percent needs improvement and .7 percent unsatisfactory. Overall in the city, 94.1 percent of educators were rated proficient or higher, just under the statewide average.
The highest percentage of unsatisfactory educators — 2.9 percent — were Grafton Street and Worcester East Middle schools. The highest numbers of exemplary educators — 33.3 percent and 32.1 percent — were at University Park Campus School and Worcester Arts Magnet School, respectively. The highest percentage of needs improvement educators — 25.7 percent — were at Worcester East Middle, where 14.3 percent were also rated exemplary, well above the state average.
In the city's two Level 4 schools, Burncoat Street Elementary and Elm Park Community School, the percentage of educators rated proficient or higher were 96.7 percent and 91.1, respectively. No teachers at Burncoat were rated unsatisfactory; while 2.2 percent received that designation at Elm Park.
Stacey DeBoise Luster, human resources manager for the Worcester public schools, said she has been impressed by the level of detail in the evaluations, pointing out that when an evaluator labels a teacher as needing improvement, he or she provides detailed and specific things that teacher can do.
"When I see 'needs improvement,' I don't see a negative," Ms. Luster said. "We are giving them support because we really do need them to be proficient. If you don't tell a person that they need to make changes, then you won't get changes. It's not comfortable to say that to people, but our principals are saying that."
The Central Massachusetts school with the highest portion of educators rated unsatisfactory was the Meetinghouse School in Westminster, at nearly 6 percent, but the small school has only two grades and so few educators that the percentage could have been caused by a single unsatisfactory educator.
"I don't think it means much. I'll be talking to the principal, but my guess is it's just one teacher," said Ralph E. Hicks, superintendent of the Ashburnham-Westminster Regional School District.
Leicester Middle School, which also has a relatively small staff, was near the bottom of the list of area schools with slightly more than 5 percent of its teachers rated unsatisfactory and slightly more than 5 percent rated needs improvement, according to the state figures.
Leicester Superintendent Judy Paolucci said the district is still adjusting to the new teacher assessment model and has been working on making sure different administrators are as uniform as possible in how they score instruction.
"We're working hard to try to be consistent in our evaluations, but we're all pretty new at it ourselves," said Ms. Paolucci, who noted that the district's administrators will get more training on classroom evaluation.
Despite the learning curve with the assessment system, Ms. Paolucci said she was confident that teachers are doing a good job in the middle school overall.
"We have a lot of very good people, but sometimes even the best people don't employ the best practices all the time," she said. "We want to use this evaluation system to improve practice, but it's not about ranking teachers."
Gardner High reported three of its 57 evaluated educators were rated unsatisfactory for a percentage of slightly more than 5 percent, the highest in the region among high schools, according to the state figures.
The chief academic officer of Gardner public schools, Catherine A. Goguen, said the school has a small staff for a high school and has had some turnover in the faculty recently.
"The principal of that school did react to the data and has made a couple of changes to address it," Ms. Goguen said.
Leicester's Ms. Paolucci noted that comparing schools between districts may be problematic because some tended to rate almost all of their staffs as proficient while others sought to come up with helpful feedback for teachers.
More than 200 schools in Central Massachusetts reported to the state that they had no unsatisfactory teachers at all.
Eight area schools rated half or more of their teachers exemplary.
Two of those schools, Dawson Elementary in Holden and Central Tree Middle School in Rutland, are in the Wachusett Regional School District. Wachusett Regional School District Superintendent Darryll McCall didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.
Right now, educators are judged on their classroom skills. Within the next couple of years, evaluations will feature a student performance component, including student growth percentiles gleaned from standardized test scores. Mr. Chester said classroom practice and student learning ratings will be calculated separately but examined together.
Teachers who are rated needs improvement are given one year to generate and carry out a so-called directed growth plan. If they do not show measurable improvement after one year, they drop to unsatisfactory, at which point the principal and a team will create an improvement plan for that teacher. If, after a year, that teacher does not improve, they would be recommended for dismissal.
Massachusetts Teacher of the Year Jeff Shea of Belmont High School said he is pleased with how the new evaluations have unfolded.
"There's more data going into the evaluations now," he said, adding that shorter, more frequent evaluations are happening in schools versus one a year over four years under the previous system.
Leonard Zalauskas, president of the Educational Association of Worcester, the local teachers union, did not immediately return a call for comment, but he has previously expressed concern over the subjectivity of the evaluation process.
Thursday's data reflects evaluations of 71,700 educators in 372 districts statewide during the 2013-14 school year.
In 2012-13, the first year the new evaluations were implemented, only the state's 233 Race to the Top districts gave them. Last year, Race to the Top districts were required to evaluate all educators; non RTTT districts at least 50 percent. Next year, all educators statewide will be evaluated under the new frameworks.
Some schools do not show ratings data, in most cases because samples were too small, i.e. too few educators in a given category, or because all or all but one educator in a given category received the same rating.
For school- and district-level evaluation data, go to http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/educatorevaluationperformance.aspx.
For more information on educator evaluation, go to www.doe.mass.edu/edeval.
Thomas Caywood of the Telegram & Gazette staff contributed to this report. Contact Sara Schweiger at Sara.Schweiger@telegram.com.
In Worcester, 11 percent of educators were rated exemplary, 83.1 percent satisfactory, 5.2 percent needs improvement and .7 percent unsatisfactory. Overall in the city, 94.1 percent of educators were rated proficient or higher, just under the statewide average.
The highest percentage of unsatisfactory educators — 2.9 percent — were Grafton Street and Worcester East Middle schools. The highest numbers of exemplary educators — 33.3 percent and 32.1 percent — were at University Park Campus School and Worcester Arts Magnet School, respectively. The highest percentage of needs improvement educators — 25.7 percent — were at Worcester East Middle, where 14.3 percent were also rated exemplary, well above the state average.
In the city's two Level 4 schools, Burncoat Street Elementary and Elm Park Community School, the percentage of educators rated proficient or higher were 96.7 percent and 91.1, respectively. No teachers at Burncoat were rated unsatisfactory; while 2.2 percent received that designation at Elm Park.
Stacey DeBoise Luster, human resources manager for the Worcester public schools, said she has been impressed by the level of detail in the evaluations, pointing out that when an evaluator labels a teacher as needing improvement, he or she provides detailed and specific things that teacher can do.
"When I see 'needs improvement,' I don't see a negative," Ms. Luster said. "We are giving them support because we really do need them to be proficient. If you don't tell a person that they need to make changes, then you won't get changes. It's not comfortable to say that to people, but our principals are saying that."
The Central Massachusetts school with the highest portion of educators rated unsatisfactory was the Meetinghouse School in Westminster, at nearly 6 percent, but the small school has only two grades and so few educators that the percentage could have been caused by a single unsatisfactory educator.
"I don't think it means much. I'll be talking to the principal, but my guess is it's just one teacher," said Ralph E. Hicks, superintendent of the Ashburnham-Westminster Regional School District.
Leicester Middle School, which also has a relatively small staff, was near the bottom of the list of area schools with slightly more than 5 percent of its teachers rated unsatisfactory and slightly more than 5 percent rated needs improvement, according to the state figures.
Leicester Superintendent Judy Paolucci said the district is still adjusting to the new teacher assessment model and has been working on making sure different administrators are as uniform as possible in how they score instruction.
"We're working hard to try to be consistent in our evaluations, but we're all pretty new at it ourselves," said Ms. Paolucci, who noted that the district's administrators will get more training on classroom evaluation.
Despite the learning curve with the assessment system, Ms. Paolucci said she was confident that teachers are doing a good job in the middle school overall.
"We have a lot of very good people, but sometimes even the best people don't employ the best practices all the time," she said. "We want to use this evaluation system to improve practice, but it's not about ranking teachers."
Gardner High reported three of its 57 evaluated educators were rated unsatisfactory for a percentage of slightly more than 5 percent, the highest in the region among high schools, according to the state figures.
The chief academic officer of Gardner public schools, Catherine A. Goguen, said the school has a small staff for a high school and has had some turnover in the faculty recently.
"The principal of that school did react to the data and has made a couple of changes to address it," Ms. Goguen said.
Leicester's Ms. Paolucci noted that comparing schools between districts may be problematic because some tended to rate almost all of their staffs as proficient while others sought to come up with helpful feedback for teachers.
More than 200 schools in Central Massachusetts reported to the state that they had no unsatisfactory teachers at all.
Eight area schools rated half or more of their teachers exemplary.
Two of those schools, Dawson Elementary in Holden and Central Tree Middle School in Rutland, are in the Wachusett Regional School District. Wachusett Regional School District Superintendent Darryll McCall didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.
Right now, educators are judged on their classroom skills. Within the next couple of years, evaluations will feature a student performance component, including student growth percentiles gleaned from standardized test scores. Mr. Chester said classroom practice and student learning ratings will be calculated separately but examined together.
Teachers who are rated needs improvement are given one year to generate and carry out a so-called directed growth plan. If they do not show measurable improvement after one year, they drop to unsatisfactory, at which point the principal and a team will create an improvement plan for that teacher. If, after a year, that teacher does not improve, they would be recommended for dismissal.
Massachusetts Teacher of the Year Jeff Shea of Belmont High School said he is pleased with how the new evaluations have unfolded.
"There's more data going into the evaluations now," he said, adding that shorter, more frequent evaluations are happening in schools versus one a year over four years under the previous system.
Leonard Zalauskas, president of the Educational Association of Worcester, the local teachers union, did not immediately return a call for comment, but he has previously expressed concern over the subjectivity of the evaluation process.
Thursday's data reflects evaluations of 71,700 educators in 372 districts statewide during the 2013-14 school year.
In 2012-13, the first year the new evaluations were implemented, only the state's 233 Race to the Top districts gave them. Last year, Race to the Top districts were required to evaluate all educators; non RTTT districts at least 50 percent. Next year, all educators statewide will be evaluated under the new frameworks.
Some schools do not show ratings data, in most cases because samples were too small, i.e. too few educators in a given category, or because all or all but one educator in a given category received the same rating.
For school- and district-level evaluation data, go to http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/educatorevaluationperformance.aspx.
For more information on educator evaluation, go to www.doe.mass.edu/edeval.
Thomas Caywood of the Telegram & Gazette staff contributed to this report. Contact Sara Schweiger at Sara.Schweiger@telegram.com.
**************************************
I have recently finished the book The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto and would highly recommend this book to all. The book's first twenty seven installments can be found at Templeton Times blog 01436 right here on your computer. Here is a taste of one of the chapters: Gatto Whenever education is the topic, The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto may well add to the dialog.
ReplyDelete