CES Did Not Ensure That Its Educators and Evaluators Completed All Required Evaluation Activities During the 2017–2018 School Year.

CES cannot effectively assess educator performance, provide meaningful feedback to its educators, or promptly identify and address underperformance.

Overview

During the 2017–2018 school year, CES did not ensure that its educators and evaluators completed all required activities for the annual evaluation cycle for 30 of the 60 educators⁶ in our sample. Specifically, 8 educators did not complete self-assessments, 6 educators did not complete goal-setting forms, 18 educators did not maintain directories of evidence documenting progress toward their goals, evaluators did not observe 20 educators at least four times during the school year, evaluators did not complete formative assessments for 16 educators, and evaluators did not complete summative evaluations for 4 educators. Additionally, CES did not have an evaluation system for administrators.

As a result, CES cannot effectively assess educator performance, provide meaningful feedback to its educators, or promptly identify and address underperformance.

Authoritative Guidance

The regulation 603 CMR 35.06(2) specifies that the evaluation cycle must include self-assessment; 603 CMR 35.06(3) specifies that the evaluation cycle must include goal setting and development of an educator plan; 603 CMR 35.06(5) specifies that the evaluation cycle must include a formative assessment; 603 CMR 35.07(1)(c) specifies that observations must be used as evidence in evaluations; and 603 CMR 35.06(6) specifies that the evaluation cycle must include a summative evaluation.

CES’s Teacher Evaluation System guide refines the requirements of 603 CMR 35 by establishing the following requirements for each phase of the evaluation cycle.

PHASE 1: Self-assessment . . .

In the first eight (8) weeks of school, all teachers and teaching coordinators will review the four Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching and use the self-assessment tool for this purpose. . . .

PHASE 2: Goal Setting and Plan Development . . .

All educator plans shall include one goal for each of the Standards and Indicators of Effective Teaching for a total of three (3) goals. . . .

PHASE 3: Implementation of Educator Plan

Throughout the year, all educators and teaching coordinators will maintain a portfolio demonstrating evidence of their progress towards their Educator Plan goals. . . . Furthermore, Educators and Evaluators should use the TeachPoint system for storing selected artifacts that demonstrate evidence of your progress, in addition to your hard copy portfolio.

PHASE 4: Formative Assessments and Evaluations . . .

Evaluators are expected to conduct at least four (4) mini observations throughout the year. . . .

PHASE 5: Summative Evaluation . . .

Educators on a two-year Self-Directed Plan will have a summative evaluation every other year, pending ongoing performance ratings at the Exemplary or Proficient level.

For educators on any of the other plans, the evaluator will provide a comprehensive summative evaluation at the end of the year of the educator’s performance in each of the Standards and indicators and overall.

For the evaluation of administrators, 603 CMR 35.04 states,

School committees [including educational collaborative boards] shall establish evaluation systems and performance standards for the evaluation of administrators that include all of the principles of evaluation, set forth in 603 CMR 35.00. School committees may supplement the standards and indicators in 603 CMR 35.04 with additional measurable performance standards consistent with state law and collective bargaining agreements where applicable. The district shall adapt the indicators based on the role of the administrator to reflect and allow for significant differences in assignment and responsibilities. The district shall share the performance standards with all administrators.

Reasons for Issue

CES does not have internal controls to ensure that all aspects of the annual evaluation process are completed for all educators. CES did not provide a reason it does not have an evaluation system for administrators.

Recommendations

1. CES should develop internal controls to ensure that all phases of the annual evaluation process are completed for all educators.
2. CES should develop and implement an evaluation system for administrators and ensure that it meets the requirements of 603 CMR 35.

Auditee’s Response

The extensive suite of performance evaluation activities we carry out with our educator workforce together with the complications endemic to the use of a new online evaluation information system requires we undergo a thorough review of this product to ensure it is configured such that potential user errors are mitigated, its features are leveraged to support our internal control systems, and it reflects intended practice.

CES will review the CES evaluation system for administrators, and create a guide documenting procedures for its current practices as is required by Section 35 of Title 603 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, and implement corresponding internal controls going forward, clarifying consistent expectations for all CES programs.

CES will be reviewing these materials, forms, and tools across all CES programs where such evaluation is required for consistency of application and implementation.

Post-Audit Period Actions for Finding 3

Within the DYS program, we have drafted standards and indicators aligned to the evaluation system outlined by [DESE] tailored to the varied expectations of administrators working under this contract.

Additionally, we have made refinements to the forms included in the new online evaluation information system we use, in order to align with intended practice.

CES has drafted a guide to better document and articulate the administrator evaluation system going forward.

Auditor’s Reply

Based on its response, CES is taking measures to address our concerns on this matter. We again urge CES to implement our recommendation to develop internal controls to ensure that all phases of the annual evaluation process are completed for all educators.

6.     Some educators had more than one instance of noncompliance.

Date published:	July 22, 2021