REPORT 2011 End Of yEaR - Stand for Childrenstand.org/.../SFC_MA_EOY_2011_122811_final.pdf · REPORT2011 End Of yEaR Section 1 STand fOR ChildREn’S imPaCT. Our advocacy network

REPORT2011 End Of yEaR

www.stand.org/ma


Section 1 STand fOR ChildREn’S imPaCT. Our advocacy network has continued to

leverage positive change for students at

both local and state levels. Pg 4

Section 2 EvaluaTiOnS and STaffing: liSTEning TO SChOOl lEadERS. We collaborated with MassINC Polling Group

to survey public school principals across

Massachusetts. These results reveal important

trends in principals’ experiences with traditional

evaluation and staffing procedures. Pg 7

Section 3 uniTing TO SuPPORT EduCaTORS and SChOOl QualiTy. Stand for Children

joined a wide array of stakeholders in 2011 to form

a new approach to supervising and evaluating

teachers and principals. The new system will

include an emphasis on multiple measures of

student learning growth, including Student Growth

Percentiles. This section provides an overview

of these particular metrics as well as other

measurements of school quality. Pg 14

Section 4 WhaT dO ThE COnTRaCTS Say? a REviEW Of TEaChER STaffing PROCEduRES in maSSaChuSETTS. Collective bargaining agreements govern many

of the policies in Massachusetts’ school districts.

This review highlights how different types

of contracts approach important teacher

staffing decisions. Pg 20

Thank yOu fOR jOining uS in ThE fighT TO EnSuRE ThaT EvERy Child in maSSaChuSETTS gRaduaTES fROm high SChOOl PREPaREd fOR, and WiTh aCCESS TO, a COllEgE EduCaTiOn.

StandMassachusetts@MassStand

Section 5 gREaT TEaChERS gREaT SChOOlS. To build on the

momentum that Massachusetts has developed,

Stand for Children has launched a new statewide

campaign aimed at ensuring that every child has

access to great educators. Pg 26

highlighTS

2011 End of Year Report | 3

inTROduCTiOnAs an independent social justice organization, Stand for Children is deeply committed to ensuring that every

child graduates from high school prepared for, and with access to, a college education. Since the founding of

Stand for Children’s Massachusetts affiliate in 2003, we have organized committed citizens around improving

public education and helped leverage millions of dollars towards the Commonwealth’s public schools. Our

advocacy efforts revolve around the belief that every child, regardless of the zip code in which they live or go

to school, must have access to a great teacher and a great school. A high-quality public education should not

be a privilege; it should be a birthright.

Massachusetts is often cited as a leader in public education. The Commonwealth boasts the highest

achievement levels in the nation, as measured by the national NAEP exam and by international assessments

such as PISA and TIMSS.1 Results from the 2011 National Assessment for Education Progress revealed that

Massachusetts has again ranked first in the country. Not all of the Commonwealth’s students, however, are

achieving at high levels. Achievement gaps continue to persist between white children and children of color

as well as between children from low-income and higher-income households.2 According to the recent 2011

MCAS results, 60 percent of Massachusetts’ low-income third graders are not proficient readers. The 2011

NAEP results in 8th grade reading also showed that score gaps between Black, Latino and White students have

not changed significantly since 1998.3

No silver bullet exists to address all the varied factors contributing to Massachusetts’ proficiency gaps. We

have reasons to remain hopeful, however, in the direction of our state’s education policies. After winning a

$250 million Race To The Top grant in 2010, Massachusetts began to tackle the achievement gap in new

ways. A renewed focus on educator quality, including how to supervise and support all teachers and principals,

pushed forward a critical conversation around the importance of the human capital in our schools. Additional

resources and support were directed towards our lowest-performing schools, alongside a sense of urgency and

commitment to improving student outcomes.

Stand for Children’s 2011 End Of Year Report examines important steps that Massachusetts has taken to

improve public education and how Stand for Children’s members contributed to these efforts, as well as

results from original research in several key areas. We also highlight our new statewide Great Teachers Great

Schools campaign to promote great teaching and leadership across the Commonwealth. We hope you will join

our efforts to ensure that all children have access to a great education.

4 | 2011 End of Year Report

STand fOR ChildREn’S imPaCT

Stand members and staff achieved significant victories for the children of Massachusetts in 2011 at both the local and state levels. Our staff spent the year training parents, educators, and concerned citizens to be effective community leaders and advocates for children, while also promoting improvements in public education across the state.

Urban IMpact: OrganIzIng In bOStOn, WOrceSter and SprIngfIeldThis past year has brought about a significant and exciting shift to our

organizing model. Results from an extensive internal analysis of our previous

model coupled with significant input from members and key stakeholders

exposed an opportunity for Stand to increase its impact on all children across

the Commonwealth. We realized that we could direct our efforts and resources

to areas with the highest need by re-directing our Organizers from suburban communities to urban areas with

larger percentages of low-performing schools. As a result of shifting our Organizers to urban communities, we

are one step closer to providing all children with the excellent public education they deserve.

This shift maximizes our impact for children in the following ways:

• Enables us to grow and deepen our relationships with key stakeholders. A State Organizing Director

and Organizers now oversee each community, thereby allowing Stand to develop deeper and

more meaningful relationships with members of the community and school leadership. These

relationships provide necessary insight into the unique needs of each community and allow us to

tailor our campaigns to these needs.

• Maximizes our impact on closing the achievement gap. By organizing in large urban communities

with high percentages of low-income families and students who are Limited English Proficient, we

are able to provide resources to parents they would not otherwise be able to access.

• Enables the immediate and effective mobilization of suburban members. Suburban members are

now unified by a statewide network, which allows us to consolidate efforts to educate members

about current initiatives and ways to take action on behalf of children. Instead of reaching out to

each community separately, we are now able to target all members at once, thereby maximizing our

reach and impact.

• In less than a year, we have already seen incredible success with this model. Our initial efforts have

focused on launches in Boston and Springfield, along with a significant expansion of our Worcester

chapter. These three cities are home to more than half of the 35 lowest-performing (Level 4) schools

in the state, as well as diverse communities and large populations of low-income families. In the

coming years, we look forward to expanding into other gateway cities to make a positive

impact for children.

Spring�eld

WorcesterBoston

Section 1


bOStOn We formally launched our Boston chapter on January 29th, giving greater voice to the students and parents

of Massachusetts’ largest city. In less than a year, Stand Organizers have garnered public support from City

Councilor John Connolly and Boston Public Schools Superintendent Carol Johnson and have partnered with

Boston Public School’s Welcome and Enrollment Services Department to increase accessibility of information

regarding school choice options to parents across the city. As of December 2011, over 300 active members,

2500 supporters and 12 leaders represented the Boston Chapter.

Boston Organizers spent much of the year advocating to the State Board of Elementary and Secondary

Education for more rigorous regulations regarding educator evaluations. Of the 700 pieces of written

testimony that Stand supporters submitted to the Board, 400 came from community members in Boston.

Further information on these regulations, and the broader changes in evaluation and supervision that they

introduced, can be found on page 14. Additionally, under the leadership of Boston Organizer Juan Carlos

Ferrufino, East Boston’s P.J. Kennedy School has made incredible improvements in increasing access to

Back-to-School and Open House events, along with ensuring that its School Site Council better represents

the 85 percent of Latino students at the school. As a result of Juan Carlos’ and Principal Walter Henderson’s

combined efforts to publicize parent events in Spanish and English and to engage the majority Latino parent

community in the East Boston elementary school, five Latino parents have gained seats on the School Site

Council. Parent attendance at school events has also dramatically increased.

WOrceSter Our Organizing Team has carried out strong advocacy efforts on behalf of Worcester’s students this year.

Specifically, we created a district-wide educator team, hired a second Worcester Organizer in September,

distributed a School Committee Voter Guide, and even created the first-ever Stand youth team, thereby

allowing us to engage a group of passionate, energetic activists in a movement in which they are often

left on the sidelines.

Additionally, we held workshops and listening sessions at Worcester’s two Level 4 underperforming schools,

Chandler Elementary Community School and Union Hill Elementary School as part of our commitment

to ensure that they stay on track with their turnaround plans. Furthermore, we provided the school

administration of five Worcester schools with in-depth leadership development training to build out

their Parent Teacher Organizations and School Site Councils, which serve as the governing bodies in the

implementation of the school’s turnaround plan.

SprIngfIeld Our Springfield Organizer came on board in September and has already begun forming partnerships with

four schools, in which we will train parents to become stronger advocates for their children and the children

of the greater Springfield community. Beginning this winter, we will provide these parents with leadership

development opportunities and advise them in ways to take an active role in their school’s Parent Teacher

Organization, School Governance Council, and local Stand campaigns.

Teams at these four schools have already begun a campaign to educate parents in each school zone across

the city about the importance of school attendance and the direct correlation between high truancy rates, high

drop-out rates, and low rates of on-time graduation. We are eager to build on these initial successes, along

with the excitement generated from our successful Springfield Chapter Kickoff event, hosted in December at

the Basketball Hall of Fame, in order to unite the parents of Springfield to demand better student outcomes

for their children.


StateWIde IMpact: pOlIcy VIctOrIeS fOr MaSSachUSettS’ chIldren Stand members provided critical support in two key statewide advocacy efforts this year. These victories,

described below, will create a fundamental shift in the way monetary and professional development resources

are allocated to educators and schools across the state.

educator evaluations Joining a diverse group of stakeholders, including education advocates, education leaders, and labor leaders,

Stand members and staff submitted more than 700 pieces of testimony in a successful, collaborative effort to

convince the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve new educator evaluations. The

new regulations, approved in June, will be instrumental in giving teachers the vital feedback and support they

need to improve their practice and celebrate their accomplishments. This represents a statewide effort framed

around supporting educator effectiveness in our schools.

health benefit reformStand members and staff provided vital input to ensure that the FY 2012 budget included a meaningful

provision for health benefit reform. The provision will save communities across the state millions of dollars

which will be used to save teachers’ jobs, upgrade classroom technology, and build better schools for

our children.

MeMberShIp and OrganIzatIOnal grOWth In the last 12 months, Stand’s movement has grown tremendously in Massachusetts. Our network now

includes 606 members, 35,432 contacts statewide, and thirteen new hires to our Massachusetts staff. Key

new personnel include:

• Boston Director Priya Linson, who served as Ed Pioneers’ Program Director prior to joining Stand.

• Political Director Christian Price, who comes to Stand from Planned Parenthood, where she served

as a senior member of their political and advocacy staff.

• Policy Director Genevieve Quist, who previously worked for Stand as a Community Organizer. She

came to Stand after completing her Ph.D in Social Policy and serving as a public school teacher in a

low-income middle school.

• Communications Director Sam Castañeda Holdren, who has an extensive background fighting for

social justice, most recently working on school safety issues and advocating for comprehensive anti-

bullying legislation with Equality Arizona.

• Priya, Christian, Genevieve, and Sam are joined by seven new Urban and Statewide Organizers and

two new members of the Development and Operations teams.

None of the victories described above would have been achieved without the support of our numerous

community partners, donors, members, and friends of the organization. Thank you to all who are helping to

make our vision of providing all children with an equal opportunity for success a reality.


EvaluaTiOnS and STaffing: liSTEning TO SChOOl lEadERSWhile teachers are the most critical in-school factor to improving student achievement, school leaders are the second most important.4 to gain a better understanding of what school principals in Massachusetts think about the teacher evaluation and staffing procedures that are already in place in their respective schools and districts, Stand for children contracted with the MassInc polling groupi, an independent, non-partisan polling firm, to develop and conduct a comprehensive survey. Our survey of school principals serves as an addition to the valuable research work that has recently been directed towards identifying the perspective of classroom teachers. It is our aim to contribute to this growing body of knowledge on educators’ attitudes and experiences.5

The content of the survey was developed jointly between Stand for Children and The MassINC Polling Group,

and included several demographic questions about the respondent and the school where he or she is a

principal. Data collection took place in October and November of 2011, during which invitation postcards,

paper surveys, and reminder postcards were sent to the approximately 1,800 principals listed in the

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s online database. Respondents had the option of filling

out the paper version of the survey they received or taking the survey online, and reminder calls were placed

to a randomly selected group of 400 potential respondents. A total of 271 responses were ultimately received

during the data collection period.

Results were weighted to accurately reflect the makeup of schools in Massachusetts on region, grade level

of the school, school size, and the percentage of low-income students receiving free or reduced price lunch

through the National School Lunch Program. The margin of sampling error is +/- 5.5 percent at a 95 percent

level of confidence for the full sample.

i About the MassINC Polling Group: The MassINC Polling Group is an independent, non-partisan organization providing public opinion research and analysis to public, private, and social sector clients. MPG is a full-service opinion polling operation offering strategic consultation, a wide-ranging suite of analytical products, and high-level communication and outreach planning. For more information or to request an engagement, visit massincpolling.com.

About the MassINC / MassINC Polling Group relationship: The MassINC Polling Group (MPG) is a subsidiary of MassINC that conducts polling and survey research for clients that hire MPG. MPG’s client relationships as well as polls and reports produced as a part of these client relationships are not necessarily reflective of the views of MassINC. For additional information on this relationship, please contact MassINC at (617) 742-6800.

Section 2


The results below summarize what school principals stated about the evaluation and staffing procedures that

are currently in place in their respective schools and districts.

responsibilities and trainingIn nearly all cases (95%), the principal reports having primary responsibility for managing the teacher

evaluation process. Eighty-five percent of principals also say they are responsible for conducting the

evaluation process. The remainder say responsibility is divided between the vice principal (2%), a department

head (5%), or more than one person (9%).

Among principals who say they are responsible for conducting the evaluation process, about seven out of

ten (71%) say they believe the training they have received on conducting the evaluation process is sufficient,

compared to 16 percent who say it is not sufficient. Among this same group, one in three say they received

six or more days of training in the last five years, while 29 percent got three to five days. Twenty-two percent

received two days or less and 16 percent report no training at all in the last five years.

frequency and duration of evaluationNearly all (96%) of principals say provisional teachers are evaluated once a year or more, with 81 percent

conducting evaluations two or more times a year. About two thirds (65%) say teachers with Professional

Teacher Status (PTS) are evaluated every two years, with another 24 percent reporting more frequent

evaluations. Eight in ten principals report spending either one to three hours (55%) or four to eight hours

(24%) on each teacher for an evaluation cycle. Another 14 percent say they spend less than 1 hour per

teacher for each cycle.

effectiveness and uses of the evaluation processAs a management tool, the evaluation system is seen by roughly three out of four principals as either

somewhat useful (57%) or very useful (17%). When asked specifically what it is useful for, the highest number

said it is effective at identifying both high performing teachers (79%) and ineffective teachers (78%), while

smaller majorities found it useful in creating an atmosphere of continuous improvement (57%) or helping

teachers improve deficiencies (65%).

The survey also asked which specific staffing processes were affected by the evaluation process. Granting

Professional Teacher Status was the most frequent use of evaluations in this area, followed by dismissal

decisions. Evaluations are much less frequently used in layoffs, deciding whom to recruit or hire, or in

determining compensation levels.

Figure: Percent who say evaluations are “always” or “often” used in each process below

Declining whether to grant PTS

Dismissaldecisions

Identifying areas for professional development

Identifying staff for remedial training

Deciding whom to lay off, if necessary

Deciding whom to hire

Identifying staff for recruitment

Determiningcompensation levels

73%57%

40% 39%

22%13% 8% 4%


When asked about uses of the evaluation process on an open-ended basis, the largest number of comments

related to identifying areas for improvement, both at the individual and institutional level. The next most

frequent use is setting the stage for conversations with individual teachers as a part of the evaluation process.

Making decisions about whether to grant Professional Teacher Status was another frequently cited

use of evaluations.

“please describe how the results of performance evaluations are used at your school.”

ToPic counT of commenTs

Identify areas for improvement 68

Conferences / discussions 51

Granting PTS 47

Professional development 33

Other 21

Help underperformers improve 21

Goal setting 20

Placed in a file / requirement 18

Identify underperformers 18

A total of 217 comments were given. Topics with 15 or more mentions are shown here. Some comments were grouped in more than one topic so the total count in the table above exceeds 217.

In their own words - a selection of comments on uses of the evaluation process

“The performance evaluations are used at my school as a collaboration and improvement tool. During post confer-

ences the discussions focus on extending the positives, identifying the weaknesses and brainstorming different

approaches to improve instruction.”

“Especially for non-professional status teachers they are used to give explicit feedback on what they are doing well

and what specific areas to focus on improving. Teachers are given suggestions for how to improve their practice,

are asked what kind of support(s) they think would be helpful to them, e.g. coaching, observing another teacher,

videotaping. On subsequent informal visits the areas for improvement are observed to see if changes are being

attempted.”


When asked about challenges in conducting the evaluation process, the amount of time needed to conduct the

evaluation process appears to be the most significant concern to principals. Of the 238 open-ended com-

ments collected on this issue, 199 related to the total time needed to complete the evaluation process and

the conflicts that this introduces with other priorities. The next most frequently mentioned issues related to

problems with the observation process and the instruments used in the evaluation.

“please describe how the results of performance evaluations are used at your school.”


Time needed to complete the process 199

Problem with observation format 32

Problems with the instrument 31

Unions / contract challenges 24

Other 15

A total of 238 comments were given; the total count in the table above exceeds 238 because some comments were grouped into more than one topic.

In their own words - a selection of comments on uses of the evaluation process

“The paperwork requirements are simply too onerous and result in too little time available

for classroom visits and curricular supervision.”

“It feels like a ‘dog and pony show’ as it’s scheduled once or twice a year and does not reflect the regular work

of the faculty. The paperwork and the process is time consuming and less authentic than it should be. Teachers

should get ongoing, authentic feedback, throughout the school year.”

reactions to the new regulations on educator evaluationsThese evaluation procedures are largely distinct from the new evaluation system that the recently approved

regulations on educator evaluations will require. As discussed on page 14 in the “Uniting to Support Edu-

cators and School Quality” section, new evaluation procedures will be phased-in over the next three years

throughout the Commonwealth. The next section of this report will provide greater detail on how these regula-

tions will improve supervision and evaluation.

Most say they have heard either a great deal (30%) or a fair amount (48%) about the new regulations related

to teacher evaluation in Massachusetts. About half (49%) are unsure whether the new rules will be a net posi-

tive or net negative. One in three think the new regulations will have a positive net impact, while 14 percent

think the impact will be negative.


ability to assign and retain effective teachersThree quarters of principals say they either always (34%) or often (42%) have decision making authority over

teachers assigned to their school. Along the same lines, 35 percent say a teacher has been assigned to work at

their school without an interview.

Four in ten (40%) principals say they have seen an effective teacher displaced (i.e. “bumped”) by a teacher

with more seniority. About half (48%) say they have lost an effective teacher to layoffs while a less effective

teacher with more seniority has remained.

Principals of larger schools and schools with higher levels of students receiving free or reduced lunch are

more likely to report teachers assigned without an interview, effective teachers bumped or laid off in favor of

less effective teachers with more seniority, and ineffective teachers with PTS at their schools (Figure)ii. For

example, 72 percent of those with 40 or more teachers report at least one teacher with PTS who delivers poor

instruction, compared to 44 percent of principals with fewer teachers. Among principals of schools where a

quarter of more students receive free lunch, about half say a teacher has been assigned to their school with-

out an interview, compared to 23 percent of those with fewer students receiving free lunch.

ToTAL TeAcHeRs AT scHooL

% ReceiVinG fRee oR ReDuceD LuncH

Overall 39 or less 40 or more 0 to 24 25 or more

Percent who say a teacher has

been assigned to their school

without an interview

35% 32% 40% 23% 51%

Percent who say an effective

teacher at their school has been

reassigned (i.e. “bumped”) to

make space for a teacher with

more seniority

40% 29% 50% 35% 47%

Percent who say an effective

teacher at their school been laid

off while a less effective teacher

with more seniority has kept his

or her job

48% 40% 57% 45% 55%

Percent who say a teacher with

PTS is working in their school

who delivers poor instruction

to students

58% 44% 72% 51% 65%

ii Some, though not all differences in this table are statistically significant. However, the consistency of direction of the differences, their consistency with other national surveys, and their consistency with analysis of Massachusetts school district teacher contracts provides additional evidence of true differences between these groups.


When asked on an open-ended basis about staffing challenges, the most frequently mentioned topics were

transfer and teacher displacement (“bumping”) processes as well as budgetary issues. Others mentioned the

predominant role of seniority as well as problems attracting high-quality applicants as key issues.

“What challenges, if any, do you face in how staffing decisions are made at your school?”


Internal bumping/ bidding/ transfers 45

Budget problems 43

No challenges 30

Processes based on seniority 22

Finding the right people 21

Other union/contract issues 19

Other 15

A total of 179 comments were given. Topics with 15 or more mentions are shown here. Some comments were grouped in more than one topic, so the total count in the table above exceeds 179.

In their own words - a selection of comments on challenges in staffing process

“I’ve lost fantastic first year teachers and received in return two teachers I had never met. For several other

teaching positions, I received a list of five candidates I had to choose from regardless of whether they were a good

fit for my school.”

“Sometimes there is a district-wide shuffling of less than mediocre teachers.”

“The inability to recruit and appoint the strongest applicant due to budget constraints.”

dismissal procedures The majority of teachers in Massachusetts are competent professionals. Sometimes, however, a teacher’s

performance in the classroom limits the amount of learning that students achieve. In these cases, a principal

may dismiss a teacher for failure to meet performance standards. Specific documentation and improvement

opportunities must be granted before the dismissal of a teacher with professional teacher status may be

considered. Meaningful opportunities to improve are critical, but if these opportunities do not result in

improved performance, principals typically wish to transition the teacher from the building. In spite of a

principal’s legal right to initiate and carry out dismissal proceedings with a teacher who does not meet

performance standards, surveyed principals express significant difficulty in dismissing an ineffective teacher

with PTS from the district.

Nearly six in ten (58%) say they have a teacher with PTS in their building who delivers “poor instruction to

students”. When asked on an open-ended basis about the difficulties in dismissing a teacher under these

circumstances, responses focused on the length and the bureaucracy embedded in the process.


“What challenges, if any, do you face in seeking the dismissal a teacher with professional teaching Status from your school,

if they are delivering poor instruction?”


Time needed 82

Amount of documentation / evidence required 65

Teachers union 64

Other 28

No difficulties 19

Complicated process 18

Other 15

A total of 220 comments were given. Topics with 15 or more mentions are shown here. Some comments were grouped in more than one topic, so the total count in the table above exceeds 220.

In their own words - a selection of comments on dismissing a teacher with PTS

“It can be done but it takes YEARS. Evaluations, followed by memos, followed by improvement plans,

followed by meetings, followed by meeting summaries, and all the while students are assigned to their

classes. VERY frustrating.”

“Long, cumbersome and not always with the desired result. Teachers just may end up at another school.”

“TIME and continuous documentation are the greatest challenges. If a staff member is reassigned to your school

with positive or NO evaluations - that is a problem and makes dismissal almost impossible.”

“Long process to document, sometimes precursor evaluations do not indicate poor practice/pass along the

problem; ‘if you leave the building I won’t write negative evaluations’.”

The responses from Massachusetts’ school principals summarized in this section highlight both opportunities

and challenges in current evaluation and staffing procedures. The opinions documented here reflect several

elements that framed the impetus for improvements in evaluation and supervision. The new regulations on

educator evaluations, approved in June of 2011, speak to some of these concerns and will be discussed in

the following section. For a more in-depth review of the results of this particular survey, please visit www.

greatteachersgreatschools.org.


uniTing TO SuPPORT EduCaTORS and SChOOl QualiTyImportant changes in how educators are evaluated took place in 2011. after receiving input from many stakeholder groups across the commonwealth, including testimony directly from educators, the board of elementary and Secondary education approved new statewide regulations governing the evaluation processes for teachers and school administrators. all groups involved in advocacy around the content of the regulations were unanimously committed to creating a more functional and productive evaluation system centered on improving teaching and learning. these new regulations are currently being implemented across 34 of Massachusetts’ lowest-achieving schools, as well as in chelsea high School, four education collaboratives and 11 school districts that volunteered to adopt the regulations early.6 Over 240 race to the top school districts will begin implementing this evaluation system in the fall of 2012, and all remaining school districts will adopt it in the fall of 2013.

What do these new regulations mean for educators and students?

All school districts will ultimately be required to use evaluation processes that are aligned with the principles

outlined in the regulations7. These principles include the following:

• Adoption of performance standards framed around the educator’s ability to: 1) use curriculum

and information from assessments effectively; 2) maintain high expectations and a safe classroom

environment for all students; 3) engage productively with families and the larger community; and 4)

contribute to a professional and collaborative culture at the school. School administrators will also be

evaluated on their instructional leadership and how they manage the school’s operation.

• Rating the educator on each performance standard and overall using a 4-point scale: Exemplary,

Proficient, Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory. Formal commendations for success or remediation

steps for improvement will follow based on the evaluation result, and the timeline allowed for an

Unsatisfactory teacher to remain on a formal Improvement Plan is capped at one school year.

• Continued reliance on observations of the educator’s practice to inform the results of the evaluation.

These observations may now be announced and unannounced.

• Incorporation of multiple measures of student performance as a significant part of the evaluation.

Trends and patterns in student achievement will help the evaluator determine if the educator has

had a low (less than a year’s worth of growth), moderate (roughly a year’s worth of growth) or high

(more than a year’s worth of growth) impact on student learning. These measures may also be

calculated on a team basis according to grade-level or subject area.

• Inclusion of feedback from students on the teacher in the teacher’s evaluation. Similarly, teachers

may provide feedback on their school administrators. The regulations also initiate a process for

analyzing how parent feedback may be incorporated into educator evaluations, and a report and

recommendations on uses of parent feedback will be released by July 1, 2013.

Section 3


• The professional judgment of the evaluator, who in many cases is the school principal, will continue

to play the most important role in determining the final evaluation rating. There is also explicit

flexibility around the district’s option to rely on Peer Assistance and Review. Typically these systems

employ some of the districts’ exemplary teachers in the evaluation and supervision of other teachers

in their respective grade or content areas. Peer evaluation systems may allow teachers to receive

more targeted and content-specific feedback on their instruction, particularly at the high school

level, and may also help reduce the overall amount of time that an individual principal or school

administrator must spend on conducting evaluations.

Given the previously discussed results of the survey of school principals, these regulations speak to several

concerns with traditional evaluation systems currently used in our school districts. The incorporation of

announced and unannounced interviews, feedback from students, shortened timeline for improvement and a

focus on multiple measures of student learning growth all highlight how the new regulations will help school

administrators and teachers engage in a more meaningful evaluation process.

Measures of student learning growth: imperfect yet important One of the principles above was the source of considerable debate during the formation of these regulations:

how to fairly assess the teacher’s impact on student learning. Stand for Children advocated for multiple

measures of student learning to play a meaningful and significant role in an educator’s evaluation and to

frame the focus paid to learning growth that takes place-taking into account where students start and where

they finish over the course of a school year.

This task is easier said than done. There are no perfect indicators of how much a student has learned,

and students also demonstrate their mastery of a skill or content knowledge in different ways. The best

approximation of the teacher’s impact on student learning allows for multiple measures to be examined and

for trends and patterns in these measures to be tracked over time. Examining patterns over a three-year

period, for example, will provide more valuable information than examining only one year.


The regulations offer flexibility in how multiple measures of student learning are determined. Possible

measures that may be incorporated as evidence of student learning include curriculum-aligned classroom

assessments, as well as measures of student progress based on learning goals that the educator and evaluator

set at the beginning of the year. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

plans to provide more specific guidance to districts on how to choose different types of measures across

various subject areas, as well as a model evaluation plan for districts to adapt or adopt by the

summer of 2012.

Among the minority of teachers who administer either the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System

(MCAS) or Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA), statewide growth measures will also be

incorporated. These measures are currently calculated using Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs). Released by

the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in 2008, SGPs have attracted increased attention

across the Commonwealth.

What exactly are Sgps and why do they matter?

Each year, parents receive information about where their children placed on last year’s MCAS according to

SGP, and these growth measures are also available for schools and districts. SGPs are calculated for schools,

districts and students using MCAS scores from grades 4-8 and grade 10 in English Language Arts

and Mathematics.

Many parents and educators are familiar with status-measures of MCAS scores: a score between 240 and

258, for example, is equivalent to proficient performance on the assessment.8 These types of measures tell

us where a student finishes at the end of a particular grade, but they do not provide information about where

they start. Growth measures help fill this information gap.

SGPs are growth measures of student learning that examine how a child performs on an end of year

assessment, such as MCAS, relative to similar students across the state. The calculation of SGPs involves

grouping students with similar previous scores together into a statewide academic peer group. An individual

student’s SGP is then calculated through comparing that student’s progress to the progress made among his

or her statewide academic peers.9

Suppose a 6th grade student’s Math MCAS score resulted in an SGP of 75. This would mean that from last

year to this year, this student roughly made as much or more progress than 75 percent of her peers who

had similar MCAS score histories in Math. Generally, SGPs below 40 indicate lower than typical growth, those

between 40 and 60 indicate typical growth, and those above 60 indicate greater than typical growth.

Through calculating SGPs instead of simply status-measures, schools serving any mix of students can be

fairly compared. A teacher who starts the school year with a classroom of students who scored, on average,

proficient on both last year’s MCAS and this year’s MCAS is not necessarily more effective than a teacher who

starts and ends with a classroom of children who are behind grade level. Status-measures masked this fact

through examining only final scores; SGPs instead consider where students start and how much growth

they make.

The SGP statistical approach to measuring growth is different from other growth metrics that rely on value-

added models (VAM). VAMs typically calculate student growth through taking into account a student’s previous

assessment data and other characteristics in order to estimate the effect that a teacher or school has had on

the student’s growth over the course of the school year.10 It is important to keep in mind that both SGPs and

VAMs are flawed and do not yield perfectly reliable estimates of student growth. This is why, for example, SGPs


are best interpreted in ranges. Year-to-year differences of anything less than 10 points may be due to random

fluctuations and should not be considered educationally meaningful.11 Student growth trends that appear over

time are therefore best examined in relation to other measures of student learning growth and in the context

of observations of the teacher. The provisions included in Massachusetts’ regulations on educator evaluations

reflect this important balance.

high Student growth percentiles are one indicator of significant academic progress SGPs are only one indicator of student learning growth, but they do allow us to draw valuable comparisons

between different schools and school districts. The table below shows how various schools in low-income,

urban areas have fared according to the median SGP across all grade levels for English Language Arts and

Mathematics.12 All of the schools listed below have SGPs that indicate at least typical growth relative to the

rest of the state, and in some cases much greater growth has occurred in one or more subject areas. Notably,

the schools listed below have predominantly low-income student populations. These children may have

started the year behind, but incredible work on the part of their teachers, principals and families helped to

propel them forward.

scHooL enRoLLmenT

numbeR AnD TyPe13DisTRicT

DisTRicT TyPe

PeRcenT Low-

income14

2011 eLA sGP

2011 mATH eLA

Alfred Zanetti 434 students: PK-8 Springfield Urban 64.50% 66 82

Charlotte Murkland

Elementary500 students: PK-4 Lowell Urban 86.20% 57 80

Clarence R.

Edwards Middle School534 students: 6-8 Boston Urban 86.90% 74 66

Josiah Quincy 810 students: PK-5 Boston Urban 77.80% 71 78

Orchard Gardens 698 students: K-8 Boston Urban 73.80% 63 79

High student learning growth does not happen by accident or by miracle. Effective teachers, and the support

systems and infrastructure needed to support great teaching, are critical to improving student outcomes.

Orchard Gardens, for example, has been highlighted in 2011 for its tremendous growth. Originally designated

as one of the state’s lowest-performing schools in 2010, it received targeted support and intervention. A

key element of the Orchard Gardens’ turnaround has been the incorporation of the T3 (Turnaround Teacher

Teams) Initiative, which involved the recruitment of excellent, experienced teachers to the school. These

teachers have been able to take on formal leadership roles and engage in strategic collaboration and training

with their colleagues. T3 teachers also receive additional compensation in recognition of the additional time

required to serve in their leadership roles. The national non-profit Teach Plus coordinates the T3 program in

partnership with Boston Public Schools. The program is expanding within and beyond Boston.


Maria Fenwick, Teach Plus’ Boston Executive Director, shared her thoughts on the role of the T3 program at

Orchard Gardens in improving student achievement:

“As a teacher who collaborated on the proposal that has become the T3 Initiative, I am proud to see the

significant growth that Orchard Gardens has shown. Its success demonstrates the collective power of a team

of teachers working towards a common goal. This model proves that under the right conditions and with the

right supports, experienced and effective teachers will take on the challenge of turning around chronically

under-performing schools.”

The Clarence R. Edwards Middle Schools has also shown impressive improvement in student growth, whereas

only a decade ago the school was consistently under-performing. Today the demographics of the student

population are generally similar, including the proportion of children who qualify for free and reduced-price

lunch, those who qualify for special education services, and those who are Limited English Proficient. Massive

improvement, however, has occurred in student achievement. After instituting several important school-based

reforms and joining the Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time Initiative in 2006, the school was able to

expand and re-design its school day. By 2009, the Edwards had narrowed achievement gaps among its

disadvantaged students and became widely regarded as a success story. Since implementing an extended

school day, the Edwards increased instructional time in core subjects and offered additional enrichment and

extracurricular activities to students. Teachers are also able to spend more time planning collaboratively and

relying on each other as professional resources.

Another school highlighted above is the Josiah Quincy, which also serves predominantly low-income students

in Boston. Gail Monaghan, the parent of a fourth grade student at the Josiah Quincy, offered this observation

of why the school demonstrates such high levels of growth:

“The teachers at Josiah Quincy chase down and work with students who struggle. A team approach is

emphasized within the classrooms. Now that my son is in the fourth grade, the focus is on students steering

their own learning, and developing a mature approach to how they want to define themselves as learners. The

behavioral expectations are high, and working hard is highly valued.”

These schools, and many others across Massachusetts, have demonstrated how disadvantaged children can

defy the statistics we hear about stubborn achievement gaps. Great teachers and school leaders are central to

this important work, and family and community engagement efforts are also required to support and sustain a

culture of achievement at any school. Children benefit when we give great educators the time and opportunity

to do their best work.

“WhaT’S yOuR SChOOl’S STudEnT gROWTh PERCEnTilE?”

The Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education hosts an easy-to-use, free website that allows parents and

educators to access information about school performance and academic achievement. You can locate stu-

dent growth percentiles for any of the Commonwealth’s public schools at “Know Your Schools MA”:

http://knowyourschoolsma.org

You can also search for any school’s SGP directly through the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/. After you search for a particular school, information

about that school’s SGPs may be located under the “Assessment” tab.


looking at school quality from another angle: the creative challenge Index

There is no perfect formula to calculate a school’s quality, and parents may prioritize some characteristics

over others when they search for the best school for their child. Student Growth Percentiles are valuable

indicators, but they do not tell the complete story – and they do not define all the progress that students

have made during a given school year. A measure based on a standardized assessment, such as the MCAS,

is sometimes compared to a doctor taking your blood pressure. This number is an important indicator, but

does not conclusively define your health. Only multiple measures of student learning, some of which have

little to do with number 2 pencils and more to do with student completion of projects, portfolios, and access

to creative opportunities, give a more accurate picture of the depth and breadth of learning that takes place

during the school year.

There are many factors to consider when we think about the quality of a school. Are students given chances to

tap into their natural talents? Are they using critical thinking skills? Are they provided with a variety of ways to

demonstrate their skill development? Are they given opportunities to think and act creatively?

Traditionally, the only consistent statewide measurement tools related to school quality were based on

standardized assessments. These assessments, such as MCAS, are one important measure of student learning

growth. The many other measures required for a more complete picture of students’ academic and cognitive

development have not been consistent across the state or even district level, leaving it difficult to draw

comparisons between different types of schools.

This changed on August 5th 2010, when Governor Patrick signed the Creative Challenge Index (CCI) legislation.

This is a different measure of accountability for schools – one that holds schools accountable for fostering

creative and innovative thinking among children. The CCI will rate schools based on the extent to which they

offer creative opportunities to children, such as music, performing arts, science fairs and debate teams.

A special commission is currently working on the development of this index and needs input from the public

in the spring of 2012 before a recommendation is released this coming June. Parents, educators, students and

community members are encouraged to share their opinions on what makes particular creative opportunities

important, and what they would like to see in the commission’s final recommendation. Details about these

hearings and how to participate will be released in the coming months.

Any parent, educator or student knows that there is no one perfect indicator of school success or quality.

When a variety of measures and indicators are examined in relation to each other, however, we can get a

much better picture of how students, teachers and school leaders are faring – and advocate for necessary

improvements. As Massachusetts moves forward in its effort to support student progress, Stand for Children

will continue to engage communities in supporting our best teachers, leaders and school programs.


WhaT dO ThE COnTRaCTS Say? a REviEW Of TEaChER STaffing PROCEduRES in maSSaChuSETTSpublic school teachers carry out what is arguably one of the most critical tasks in our society – the education of our children. teaching quality is the most important in-school factor to a student’s success.15 although chapter 71 of Massachusetts general law addresses aspects of education policy, many of the procedures that decide which teachers enter and remain in which classrooms are determined at the local level through collective bargaining between the school district and the teachers’ union. In Massachusetts, these teachers’ unions belong to one of two larger statewide teachers’ unions: the Massachusetts teachers’ association and the american federation of teachers – Massachusetts. collective bargaining has and will continue to play a valuable role in shaping the decisions and policies that impact teachers and students. the public’s understanding of the variation in policies across different types of districts, however, is generally limited. We analyzed specific sections of educators’ collective bargaining agreements to provide greater clarity on this topic. Specifically, we sought to understand how an educator’s ability and performance level is factored into staffing decisions such as layoffs and assignment.

As of the 2010-2011 school year, there were 393 operating school districts in Massachusetts.16 Not all

these districts have collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) that are publicly posted via the Massachusetts

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Some school districts are part of larger regional school

districts and share negotiations over one contract, and 61 school districts operate under charters that do not

have collective bargaining agreements. Several districts’ CBAs did not include information about the staffing

provisions we were interested in exploring, and were thus not included in the analysis. Ultimately, 310 school

districts’ CBAs were examined.17

Our analysis shows that certain districts and teachers’ unions have already negotiated contracts that

effectively link teacher quality to staffing procedures. A majority of contracts, however, still do not contain

language that connects a district’s personnel decisions primarily to a teacher’s ability. The results below show

the trends that we identified in contractual language related to reductions in force (layoffs), transfers and

displacement, bidding for open positions, and school principals’ authority in authority in decisions regarding

teacher assignment.

Demographic indicators about each district were also collected, which allowed for the identification of trends

in CBAs across urban, suburban and rural school districts and according to the overall income level of the

student population.18

Section 4


Table 1a. Urban, Suburban and Rural District Types

cATeGoRy ese coDes oR THResHoLDs PeRcenTAGe of ToTAL DisTRicTs

ReVieweD

PeRcenTAGe of DisTRicT TyPe

quALifieD As Low-income

Urban Urbanized Centers 16% 71%

Suburban

Economically Developed Suburbs

Residential Suburbs

Artistic/Resort/Retirement Communities

55% 6%

RuralRural Economic Centers

Small Rural Communities29% 20%

Table 1b. Demographic Indicators

cATeGoRy THResHoLDs PeRcenTAGe of ToTAL DisTRicTs ReVieweD

Non-Low-Income Any district with 34% or less low-income students 79%

Low-Income Any district with 35% or more low-income students 21%


reductions In force (layoffs)

In our current economy, layoffs have unfortunately become more commonplace. Cutting positions in school

districts is especially difficult, given the negative impact these decisions may have not only on teachers,

but on their students and schools. If budget cuts require a school district to layoff employees, both law and

contractual language influence the procedure that occurs.

Professional teacher status (PTS) is an important milestone for any teacher, and holds implications for how

he or she is treated during layoffs. Chapter 71, Section 42 of the Massachusetts General Laws prevents any

teacher with PTS from being laid off if there is a teacher without PTS with an equivalent certification who may

be laid off instead. Current law, however, leaves the procedure for layoffs among teachers with professional

teacher status to be determined through collective bargaining at the local level. Generally, school districts

first attempt to achieve any needed reduction in force through natural attrition – for example, not replacing

teachers who retire or leave the district voluntarily. Areas of qualification are then examined in order to

determine how many teaching positions from which subject and grade levels need to be cut. Contracts differ,

however, in how seniority and ability are considered when teachers are laid off. Among the CBAs we reviewed,

39 percent rely on seniority as the primary factor in a layoff procedure, 29 percent rely primarily on seniority

but include an exception if the more junior educator’s performance has been documented as superior, while

32 percent rely on a combination of indicators such as seniority, previous performance evaluations and

contributions to the school.

Seniority-driven layoff policies that do not take into account an educator’s performance, including impact on

student learning and contribution to the school, are essentially quality-blind. Our analysis revealed that low-

income districts are more likely to have quality-blind contract language on reductions in force: 58 percent

of low-income districts have seniority-based layoff policies among teachers with PTS compared to only 34

percent of non-low income districts. The trends are similar along district type: approximately two-thirds (65%)

of urban districts cite seniority-based layoff procedures, while only one-third (33%) of suburban districts do.

These results are comparable to national patterns in how large, urban school districts incorporate seniority

into layoff decisions. In more than 70 percent of the 75 largest school districts in the nation, which are

predominantly urban, seniority is the sole factor in deciding who is let go during reductions in force.19

Table 2. Reduction in Force Procedures

senioRiTy is THe PRimARy

consiDeRATion

senioRiTy is THe PRimARy

consiDeRATion wiTH exemPTions

senioRiTy is noT THe PRimARy consiDeRATion

Percent of All

Reviewed Districts39% 29% 32%

Percent of

Suburban Districts33% 34% 33%

Percent of Urban Districts 65% 20% 14%

Percent of Rural Districts 37% 24% 39%

Percent of Low-Income 58% 20% 22%

Percent of

Non-Low-Income34% 31% 35%


displacement or “bumping” Bumping refers to one teacher displacing another teacher from his or her position. If a teacher’s position

is eliminated as a result of layoffs, some districts allow the teacher with more seniority to “bump” another

teacher out of his or her position in another school or subject area – as long as the more senior teacher is

legally qualified to teach that subject. If, for example, a more senior teacher is qualified to teach both History

and English Language Arts, and this teacher’s History position is eliminated, bumping rights would allow him

or her to displace a more junior English teacher. Under Section 42, Chapter 71, no teacher with PTS shall

be displaced by a more senior teacher with PTS unless the more senior teacher is qualified for the position.

Beyond this, the law gives limited direction to school districts regarding how and when bumping may occur.

Bumping is explicitly referenced and permitted in 189, or 61 percent, of the reviewed collective bargaining

agreements. There is overlap between CBAs that explicitly permit bumping and those with layoff procedures

that prioritize seniority over ability. In some cases, CBAs will permit bumping to occur only after the more

senior teacher has met certain conditions. For example, a contract may allow for a more senior teacher to

displace a more junior teacher, but not if the more junior teacher has demonstrably better ability. These merit-

based exceptions in bumping clauses are noted below.

The analysis of bumping clauses according to demographic indicators revealed that, similar to layoff policies,

low-income, urban districts are more likely to explicitly permit the seniority-based displacement of teachers.

71 percent of urban districts expressly permit seniority-based displacement of more junior teachers to occur

compared to 58 percent of suburban districts.

Table 3. Seniority-based Displacement (“Bumping”)

TyPe of DisTRicTsenioRiTy-bAseD bumPinG

exPLiciTLy ALLoweDmeRiT-bAseD excePTions To

bumPinG

Percent of All Reviewed Districts 61% 7%

Percent of Suburban Districts 58% 8%

Percent of Urban Districts 71% 4%

Percent of Rural Districts 60% 6%

Percent low-income Districts 64% 2%

Percent non-low-income districts 60% 8%


principal Involvement in assignment decisions A principal is typically an instructional leader in a school building, and is also primarily responsible for

managing operations and leading a positive school culture among students and staff. Principals’ explicit roles

in teacher assignment, however, are only mentioned in 28 percent of collective bargaining agreements. In

the majority of these particular contracts, the principal is typically “consulted” before a teacher is assigned

to a position in the building. The principal is given explicit approval authority regarding who is assigned to

the school in only 4 percent of all reviewed contracts. Given the low incidence of CBAs’ explicit reference to

principal consent or other significant involvement in assignment decisions and the relatively high percentage

of principals in our survey who stated that they either always (34%) or often (42%) have decision making

authority over teachers assigned to their school, it appears that CBAs inconsistently specify the role of

principals in these decisions. As the survey results documented earlier, principals of larger schools with higher

proportions of low-income students were more likely to report teachers assigned without an interview.

The results below show how a principal’s rights in teacher assignment, as specified in collective bargaining

agreements, differ according to district type. Only 34% of low income districts’ contracts referenced

principals’ rights in teacher assignment, while an even fewer 26% of non-low income districts’ contracts

did so. In light of the results of the principal survey, in which principals of low-income schools reported a

significantly higher incidence of teacher assignment without an interview, this finding in the CBAs may be

related to involuntary transfers and/or higher incidences of layoffs and recall rights. Our review of CBAs

indicated that principal authority was more frequently mentioned specifically with regard to assigning a

teacher who had been involuntarily transferred rather than a teacher who applied for an available position

through a voluntary transfer. Because low-income school districts typically face greater strain on their

budgets, involuntary transfers, layoffs and the exercise of recall rights may be more frequent in such districts-

and related assignment procedures thus addressed more explicitly in CBAs.

Table 4. Principal’s Decision-Making Authority in Teacher Assignment.

TyPe of DisTRicTPRinciPAL’s Decision-mAkinG AuTHoRiTy is RefeRenceD

in TeAcHeR AssiGnmenT Decisions

Percent of All Reviewed Districts 28%

Percent of Suburban Districts 28%

Percent of Urban Districts 33%

Percent of Rural Districts 26%

Percent low-income Districts 34%

Percent non-low-income districts 26%


Our overall review of CBAs reveals both patterns and discrepancies that exist across Massachusetts’ 327

educator collective bargaining agreements. Urban school districts are far more likely than suburban or rural

districts to have a higher proportion of low-income students, and unfortunately also more likely to have

seniority-based layoff and transfer procedures. These types of procedures do not take into account the merit

and ability of many excellent educators. They instead prioritize length of time teaching over the many factors

that make for a great teacher, which include but are not limited to impact on student learning, outreach to

parents, professional contributions to the school, and assistance to colleagues.

It is also important to note that no one type of policy or procedure was universal in the contracts we reviewed.

Across suburban, rural and urban districts, one can find examples of school district and union collaboration

that move the contract beyond seniority-based staffing rules. These collective bargaining agreements

demonstrate the valuable role that labor management relations may play in institutionalizing progressive

policies in our schools. Such examples appeared across all district types, regardless of the low-income status

of the student population.

Our society is indebted to educators for building our country’s next generation of innovators, scholars and

leaders. The collective bargaining agreements governing their employment with school districts are critical

for ensuring fair treatment, adequate compensation and benefits. These contracts also have the potential to

be, and in some cases already are, levers for encouraging truly professional treatment of teachers through

prioritizing policies focused on merit and ability. This will allow the best possible teachers to stay in our

schools and continue working with our children.


Section 5

gREaT TEaChERS gREaT SChOOlS Massachusetts is a leader in public education. the commonwealth passed our country’s first compulsory education laws and founded the nation’s first public high school. like the rest of the country, however, the commonwealth continues to exhibit proficiency gaps between students from different socio-economic and racial backgrounds. low-income children of color are still less likely to perform at grade-level in core subject areas, and are still more likely to dropout of high school.21 these gaps, evidenced in both the 2011 naep scores and 2011 McaS results22

have proven difficult to narrow. While standardized measures such as naep and McaS are not perfect predictors for college and career readiness, research has documented that students who score at least proficient on Massachusetts’ 10th grade McaS are significantly less likely to need remedial assistance if they go on to take college-level courses.23


Socio-economic status remains linked to overall academic progress across many school districts, and

schools in low-income neighborhoods certainly face greater challenges than those in higher-income areas.

In some schools, however, low-income students in traditional district and public charter schools have made

tremendous gains in academic progress. While no one educational model or approach will work for every

student, there are at least two consistent conditions that help schools and their students thrive: the presence

of effective teachers and a strong school leader.

Researchers estimate that a child, regardless of his or her academic or socio-economic background, may triple

the amount of academic progress made during the school year when placed with a highly effective versus

ineffective teacher. This is the equivalent of a child capturing one and a half year’s worth of learning, versus

only half a year of learning, in a single school year.24

The new regulations on educator evaluations, described earlier, were approved with broad support from

a variety of stakeholder groups. Massachusetts’ turnaround schools and early-adopter school districts are

already in the process of implementing these new changes. Certain restrictions in state law and in some

school districts, however, still limit the use of evaluation results in important staffing decisions. Section 42

of Chapter 71 still requires that teachers without professional teacher status be laid off before teachers with

professional teacher status, without regard to merit or ability. As this report’s section on variation in collective

bargaining agreements showed, many other staffing decisions are left to the local level. Although local control

is certainly valuable, it has also resulted in very different types of staffing policies across different districts.

Some children are lucky enough to live in a district where a teacher’s ability is taken into account during layoff

decisions, or where the bumping of effective teachers out of their positions is limited. Other children are

not so lucky.

Quality-blind reductions in force across the teaching workforce do not allow the best educators to stay in their

classrooms. In a study of layoff procedures in the state of Washington, researchers estimated the implications

of a seniority-only layoff policy and an effectiveness-based layoff policy. Results showed that the types of

teachers who would be laid off in each scenario differed dramatically: “. . .the magnitude of the difference is

striking, roughly equivalent to having a teacher who is at the 16th percentile of effectiveness rather than at the

50th percentile. This difference corresponds to roughly 2.5 to 3.5 months of student learning”.25

National research has shown that quality-blind layoffs tend to have a disproportionately negative impact on

schools serving a high proportion of low-income students.26 Low-income, urban districts in Massachusetts

tend to enforce this type of layoff policy. As mentioned earlier in this report, almost half (48%) of principals

surveyed reported that an effective teacher had been let go during reductions in force while a less effective

teacher with more seniority remained in the school building. This scenario is unjust to educators and students

alike. Ultimately, quality-blind layoff policies are not aligned with keeping our most effective teachers in the

classroom and tend to have the most damaging effects on schools that need the most support. The staffing

procedures that govern our schools, including layoffs, transfers and teacher assignment, should first and

foremost be based on an educator’s ability to teach. While experience and seniority certainly have a role to

play, they should not trump considerations of merit.


We have an obligation to ensure that every classroom in every school is led by an effective teacher.

Through the Great Teachers Great Schools campaign, we will do just that. Our campaign is based

on the following principles:

• Teachers should be in the classroom based on their ability to teach students and not simply because

of the number of years they have worked in the system.

• Student outcomes should be considered as well as seniority when staffing decisions are made.

• School leaders must have the ability to build a team of excellent teachers. Both teachers and school

leaders deserve the right to consent to teacher placement at schools. No teacher or principal should

be subject to forced placement.

• Meaningful job protections must be in place to ensure our most effective teachers remain

in the classroom.

• We must ensure that every educator in every school is given opportunities to develop professionally

and improve their practice to provide the best education possible for our children. For the small

percentage of teachers who are not successful, we must provide a fair and transparent process to

transition them from our schools.

• Consistency throughout the Commonwealth is necessary to ensure high standards for every school.

All of our children, regardless of the zip code in which they live, deserve great teachers and great

schools. All educators deserve access to effective supervision and fair staffing policies, regardless of

the school district in which they work.

ChildREn nEEd advOCaTES in their corner to speak up for the public policies that will protect their best teachers and encourage more great teaching and learning. to learn more about how the Great Teachers Great Schools campaign is promoting positive changes in education policy, please visit www.greatteachersgreatschools.org


Thank yOu fOR STanding WiTh uS fOR ChildREn.

MASSACHUSETTS

Photos provided by Mike Nyman, Steve Bloch and Thomas Bacon


Footnotes and References

1 Fleischman, H.L., Hopstock, P.J., Pelczar, M.P., & Shelley, B.E. (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context (NCES 2011-004). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights From TIMSS 2007:

mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001 Revised). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation’s report card: Reading 2011. (NCES 2012-457). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation’s report card: Mathematics 2011. (NCES 2012-458). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

2 National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation’s report card: Reading 2011. (NCES 2012-457). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation’s report card: Mathematics 2011. (NCES 2012-458). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

3 National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The nation’s report card: 2011 MA state snapshot for 8th grade Reading. Retrieved October 3, 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012454

4 New Leaders for New Schools (2009). Principal effectiveness: a new principalship to drive student achievement, teacher effectiveness and school turnarounds. Retrieved May 4, 2011 from http://www.newleaders.org/newsreports/publications-2/principal-effectiveness/

5 Valuable additions to the body of knowledge on teachers’ opinions and experiences in Massachusetts include the Massachusetts Teachers’ Association 2010 survey of teachers in “Reinventing educator evaluation: connecting professional practice with student learning” (http://massteacher.org/advocating/~/media/Files/PDFs/CEPP/evalreport.pdf), Teach Plus’ teacher-driven publications on current policy issues in education (http://www.teachplus.org/page/reports-75.html) and the 2008 Massachusetts Teaching, Learning and Leading Survey (http://www.masstells.org/)

6 Update on implementation supports and model system for the new regulations on evaluation of educators. (n.d.) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved November 9, 2011 from http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/updates/11_0906.html

7 Regulations on evaluation of educators (June 28, 2011) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved July 23, 2011 from http://www.doemass.org/lawsregs/603cmr35.html?section=01

8 Massachusetts comprehensive assessment system overview. (n.d.) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved October 5, 2011 from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/overview.html?faq=3

9 MCAS student growth percentiles: Interpretive guide (March 2011) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved October 7, 2011 from www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/growth/InterpretiveGuide.doc

10 Different types of value-added models exist. For an overview of different technical approaches, see:

Sanders, W. L. (2010) Comparisons among various educational assessment value-added models. SAS Institute, Inc. Presented at The Power of Two-National Value-Added Conference: Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved November 23, 2011 from www.sas.com/resources/asset/vaconferencepaper.pdf

11 MCAS student growth percentiles: Interpretive guide (March 2011) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved October 7, 2011 from www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/growth/InterpretiveGuide.doc

12 MCAS report (district) for grade 10 all students. (n.d.) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved October 5 2011 from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/mcas.aspx

13 Enrollment data for the 2010-2011 school year.

14 Organization search (n.d.) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved October 5, 2011 from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/search/search.aspx?leftNavId=11238


15 Bembry, K., Jordan, H., Gomez, E., Anderson, M., & Mendro, R. (1998). Policy implications of long-term teacher effects on student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association: San Diego, CA.

Fallon, D. (2003). Case study of a paradigm shift (the value of focusing on instruction). Education Research Summit: Establishing Linkages: University of North Carolina: Triangle Park, NC.

Gordon, R., Kane, R., & Staiger, D. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using performance on the job. The Brookings Institution: Washington, D.C.

Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2009.) What makes a good teacher and who can tell? CALDER Working Paper 30. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005.) Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73 (2), 417-58.

16 Contact Information. (n.d.) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved November 9, 2011 from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/general.aspx?topNavId=1&orgcode=00000000&orgtypecode=0&

17 Massachusetts public school teacher collective bargaining agreements. (n.d.) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved November 13 2011 from http://educatorcontracts.doemass.org

Two out of 63 total charter schools, (North Central Charter School and Conservatory Lab Charter School) do have collective bargaining agreements that were included in the review. This review relates to the collective bargaining agreements reviewed between July and November of 2011. The most recent review was made November 13, 2011; the statistics in this report do not reflect changes made to district boundaries or contract language after this date.

18 School districts with over 35% low-income students were identified as “low-income districts”; this threshold is consistent with the Federal government’s designation of Title I funding to schools with at least 35% low-income students. The “Low-Income Districts” cited in our review have 35% or more low-income students; 64 of the 310 districts we examined qualified for this status.

19 Goldhaber, D. and Theobald, R. (Fall, 2011). “Managing the teacher workforce: the consequences of ‘last in, first out’ personnel policies”. Education Next, 11(4).

20 This included filling vacancies through open hires or voluntary transfers; it did not cover procedures regarding involuntary transfers.

21 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010). Dropout rates. Retrieved November 28, 2011 from http://www.doemass.org/infoservices/reports/dropout/

22 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2011). Spring 2011 MCAS tests: summary of state results. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/2011/results/summary.pdf

23 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2008). Massachusetts school-to-college report: High school class of 2005. Retrieved November 16, 2011 from http://www.doe.mass.edu/research/reports/0208bhe.pdf

24 Bembry, K., Jordan, H., Gomez, E., Anderson, M., & Mendro, R. (1998). Policy implications of long-term teacher effects on student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association: San Diego, CA.

Fallon, D. (2003). Case study of a paradigm shift (the value of focusing on instruction). Education Research Summit: Establishing Linkages: University of North Carolina: Triangle Park, NC.

Gordon, R., Kane, R., & Staiger, D. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using performance on the job. The Brookings Institution: Washington, D.C.

Hanushek, E. & Rivkin, S. (2009.) What makes a good teacher and who can tell? CALDER Working Paper 30. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J.F. (2005.) Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73 (2), 417-58.

25 Goldhaber, D. and Theobald, R. (Fall, 2011). “Managing the teacher workforce: the consequences of ‘last in, first out’ personnel policies”. Education Next, 11(4).

26 Sepe, C.,and Roza, M. (2010). “The disproportionate impact of seniority-based layoffs on poor, minority students”. Retrieved September 13, 2011 from http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/rr_crpe_layoffs_rr9_may10.pdf


MASSACHUSETTS

77 RUMFORD AVENUE, SUITE 2

WALTHAM, MA 02453

Our mission is to use the power of grassroots action to help all children get the excellent public education and strong support they need to thrive.

www.stand.org/ma

REPORT 2011 End Of yEaR - Stand for Childrenstand.org/.../SFC_MA_EOY_2011_122811_final.pdf · REPORT2011 End Of yEaR Section 1 STand fOR ChildREn’S imPaCT. Our advocacy network

Documents