Common Core PARCC District Determined Measures Toolkit Heigher Education Funding Toolkit Educator Evalutation Toolkit Retell Toolkit Adequate Funding for Student Success Toolkit

Other useful links:

Track legislation with MTA
Budget Spreadsheets
Just the Facts
Legislative Score Card

Educator Evaluation Framework Ratings

The MTA Measures of Effectiveness chart illustrates how these two ratings intersect.

The summative evaluation rating is based on the four separate ratings on the relevant standards of professional practice and the two goals of the Educator Plan.

Teachers and Caseload EducatorsSchool and District Administrators
Standard 1: Curriculum and Planning Standard 1: Instructional Leadership
Standard 2: Teaching All Students Standard 2: Management and Operations
Standard 3: Family and Community Engagement Standard 3: Family and Community Engagement
Standard 4: Professional Culture Standard 4: Professional Culture
Professional Practice Goal (derived from self-assessment and goal setting, and approved by the evaluator) Professional Practice Goal (derived from self-assessment and goal setting and approved by the evaluator)
Student Learning Goal (derived from self-assessment, analysis of student learning and goal setting, and approved by the evaluator) Student Learning Goal (derived from self-assessment, analysis of student learning, and goal setting and approved by the evaluator)

One of four ratings – exemplary, proficient, needs improvement, unsatisfactory – is achieved on each of the four standards and overall. All evaluator judgments must be based on the appropriate professional practice rubric and must be supported by evidence provided by either the educator or the evaluator. The goal of the Educator Evaluation Framework is a rating of proficient.

The impact on the student learning rating is based on trends and patterns on multiple measures of student outcomes. A pattern is based on the combination of outcomes on multiple measures for the same instructional period (generally a year). A trend is based on at least two years of outcomes.  One of three impacts – high, moderate, low – is achieved at the end of each year. High indicates student growth greater than that expected in a year. Moderate indicates student growth equal to that expected in a year. Low indicates student growth less than that expected in a year.