Professional development for educators is required by the Commonwealth in order to ensure that the highest quality educators are working with students in Massachusetts' schools. Effective December 1, 1999, the Commonwealth's new recertification regulations will strengthen the ongoing professional development of Massachusetts educators and align individual professional development plans more effectively with school and district improvement plans. The recertification regulations raise the standards for knowledge in the content area; provide an incentive for educators to engage in advanced academic study; enable greater decision-making at the school and district level; retain some flexibility in the kinds of activities that are eligible for professional development points for recertification; create options for new ways to assess teacher skills and knowledge; and establish a state registry of professional development providers.
Individuals with Massachusetts' professional licensure must engage in sustained professional development that strengthens professional knowledge and skills in order to meet the state's new recertification requirements. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has designed a recertification process that requires all educators to prepare an Individual Professional Development Plan for each five-year renewal cycle. The plan must be consistent with the educational needs of the school and/or district and enhance the ability of the educator to improve student learning. As spelled out by the new regulations, educators are required to obtain initial approval and final endorsement of their professional development plans from their supervisor.
Professional licensure may be renewed by the successful completion of the appropriate number of professional development points (PDPs) as set forth in 603 CMR 44.05 (2), 44.06 (1), or 44.07 (1) within a five year cycle as outlined in Appendix A of these guidelines. Educators may earn PDPs by engaging in a variety of professional development activities as part of an individual professional development plan which receives any approvals necessary under the provisions of 603 CMR 44.04. Many educators will need 10 hours in a topic for the PDPs to count toward recertification. A topic is a single or tightly integrated area of study within an academic discipline or related to a particular method of teaching or administration.
The new recertification regulations outline minimum requirements for professional development. Educators are encouraged to participate in professional experiences that support and expand their content and professional skills beyond the minimum requirements. Districts may choose to offer additional incentives through collective bargaining for educators to go beyond the minimum requirements for recertification and continue to participate in professionally relevant and academically meaningful professional development.
School districts are required annually to adopt and implement a professional development plan for all principals, teachers, other professional staff employed by the district, and school council members. Districts are also required to set forth a budget for professional development within the confines of the foundation budget. The plan must identify specific content to be addressed, including training in the teaching of the curriculum frameworks and other skills required for the implementation of the Education Reform Law, including participatory decision making and parent and community involvement (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 71, Section 38Q).
The FY01 state budget requires districts to spend at least $125 per student from state aid funds on professional development. These funds may be used for tuition, conference fees, contracted services, stipends, salaries and materials. Districts are responsible for selecting providers of professional development that are of high quality and that address the identified learning needs in the district. Districts also identify the data to be collected on professional growth and on the quality and impact of professional development.
When setting district professional development goals, the most important criterion to be considered is the identified learning needs of the students. Student performance on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) and other standardized tests administered by the district must be a part of identifying educational strengths and weaknesses. In addition, the percentage of students reading at a level appropriate to their age, student graduation rates, the percentage of students continuing on to post-secondary institutions, and other assessments that enable students to demonstrate mastery of the Frameworks and district curricula should be considered.
The Education Reform Act also requires school councils to develop annual School Improvement Plans. Schools are required to include professional development for school staff and allocation of professional development funds in the school budget in the School Improvement Plan. In school districts with language minority student populations, the Plan is to address the need for training and skills in second language acquisition and in working with culturally and linguistically diverse student populations (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 71, Section 59C).
Educators are required to develop Individual Professional Development Plans that are consistent with the educational needs of the school and/or district and enhance their ability to improve student learning. School districts must provide the following material to all employees who hold a professional license prior to the development or the biannual review of an Individual Professional Development Plan:
Districts may choose to suggest the following process to educators as Individual Professional Development Plans are developed and reviewed:
As spelled out by the new regulations, educators are required to obtain initial approval and final endorsement of their professional development plans from their supervisor. It is the educator's responsibility to ensure that her proposed professional development activities meet all state requirements for recertification. Approval of the plan means that 80% of the proposed PDPs in the plan are consistent with the educational needs of the district and/or school and that the plan is designed to improve student learning.
Direct supervisors (or their designees) are required to review and approve individual professional development plans. This means that the principal will have the authority to approve the plans of teachers and other educators who report to the principal. A principal may delegate this role to a department head. The superintendent will approve a principal's plan, and the chairperson of the school committee will approve a superintendent's plan. Educators may seek peer review prior to supervisor approval.
The process for approving individual professional development plans should be fluid enough to allow educators to develop plans individually and collaboratively, receive initial feedback from supervisors, modify their plan (in mutually agreed upon ways), and submit their plan for formal approval. Individual Professional Development Plans are intended to represent a 5-year recertification cycle. Educators need the flexibility to add relevant professional development opportunities as they arise. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education requires educators to develop individual professional development plans that meet the minimum number of PDPs required for recertification prior to initial approval. However, The PDPs to be earned in the later years of the plan may be identified in a more general manner. Educators may be asked by their supervisor to provide justification of the relevance of the proposed activities.
When discussing a plan with an educator, or when reviewing the plan for approval, supervisors may consider asking the following questions. These may assist the supervisor in determining whether or not an Individual Professional Development Plan is aligned with school and district goals and designed to improve student learning.
Is the plan consistent with the subjects or topics included in the school and/or district plan?For example, a district may, based on student MCAS scores, identify improving student literacy as one of its areas of need. The district goal may read: "All educators will improve their literacy instruction by increasing their knowledge of the mechanics of reading, expanding their repertoire of strategies for teaching literacy, and including literacy in every lesson in every subject."
Educators may review this goal, and could include the following as individual professional development activities: "Year One: I will attend workshop on the literacy model for our district. I will present what I've learned at a faculty meeting."
"I will supplement this with a summer Wilson training and all follow up days, and incorporate the Wilson method into all lessons. My documentation in support of this will include: my certificate of completion, and papers written or curricula developed, and a sampling of lessons that incorporate this instructional strategy."
These activities clearly build on the District goal of improving literacy instruction and can be clearly observed in the classroom.
Another example might relate to technology. Based on student performance on the Science & Technology portions of the MCAS, a district might decide integrating technology is an area of need. A district goal might be: "All teachers will become proficient in the use of hardware and software used by the district. All teachers will integrate technology into lessons and activities in at least one academic area."
An individual plan could build on this by including the following as proposed professional development activities. "I will participate in after-school workshops on computer literacy. I will develop proficiency with Microsoft Office, including Microsoft Excel. I will use Excel to maintain accurate student records. I will develop lessons and assignments that require student use of word processing programs."
Do the proposed activities address areas of need in terms of student learning?Above all else, individuals and their supervisors must consider student learning needs. Standardized tests, such as MCAS, provide one measure of student learning. Other assessments will also provide valuable information on student strengths and weaknesses.
When approving an individual professional development plan, supervisors should consider whether a teacher has aligned her goals and activities to school goals for student learning. For instance, if an elementary school has identified student performance in math as its primary focus, a teacher's proposed activities should include those that will improve both her content knowledge in math as well as her math pedagogy.
Can a clear link be established between proposed activities and student learning?Student learning is the most important consideration in developing individual, school, and district goals for professional development. Teachers can establish this link by reviewing student performance on assessments administered by the teacher, and on student performance on MCAS and other standardized tests. An experienced teacher can review student achievement on each unit's assessments and identify patterns of strength and weakness in student performance. This can inform the professional development activities in that individual's plan.
For instance, while preparing her plan, a teacher might examine student scores on a series of assessments in physics. If students have performed poorly on assessments relating to magnets, that individual may decide to enroll in a workshop or course that will improve both her content knowledge of magnets and her instructional strategies. Alternately, the same teacher might observe that, through classroom labs, homework assignments, and teacher administered tests, all of her students demonstrated mastery of the concepts relating to quantum mechanics. One of her professional development activities might be to teach a refresher course in that subject to her physics colleagues. Or, she might develop a study guide that can be shared with colleagues teaching the same concept.
All of these activities relate directly to student learning as measured by classroom assessments. A supervisor should look for such a link when approving professional development plans.
Will the plan improve student learning at the grade level and subject area of the educator's primary teaching assignment?There are many ways for educators to earn improve student learning. For instance, educators can lead Case Study Seminars or develop and run district mentor training. These activities improve the quality of teaching, which common sense and a variety of studies suggest will result in higher student achievement.
In addition, teachers should be sure to include some activities that specifically address the learning needs of the students in their own grade level and subject. Different courses and groups of students will have discrete needs and teachers should accommodate these needs into their Individual Professional Development Plans.
Has the educator identified professional development goals prior to identifying proposed activities?Goals are not a required part of an Individual Professional Development Plan; they may, however, help the educator identify their individual professional development needs and create a coherent plan of related activities. A supervisor may encourage the individual to create goals based on evaluations of her strengths and weaknesses, collaborations and career advancement plans, the special needs of specific classes of students and subjects being taught, and her own professional judgement.
For instance, an individual might review her evaluations, student performance on assessments, and feedback from colleagues and parents and identify specific professional development goals.
Has the individual considered his own professional development needs within the context of t the school and district goals?When approving professional development plans, supervisors should consider whether the individual's goals are aligned with the school and district goals and whether they are designed to enhance the ability of the educator to improve student learning. Supervisors may ask for clarification on how an individual's personal professional development goals will link to school and district goals.
For instance, a teacher may wish, as part of personal professional development goals, to learn more about differentiated instruction. Understanding how to tailor instruction to all students within her classroom will help her to deliver effective instruction. Even if the school or district does not have a goal specifically relating to differentiated instruction, this goal could align with general school and district goals that address improve student learning.
Another example might be that the algebra teacher is interested in professional development in writing skills. A goal might read: "Year One: I will enroll in Creative Writing 101 through the continuing education unit of the local college. I will increase my writing skills, with special attention paid to the rules of syntax and grammar. I will incorporate this into lessons by requiring students to keep an Algebra Journal that explains, in correct English, the concepts of each lesson. I will document this through my own writing assignments from class and through samples of student work."
Through her justification and documentation of her activities, it is clear that this individual plans to incorporate the new knowledge into her lessons. This demonstrates that this goal aligns to a school and/or district goal focused on increasing student proficiency in English/Language Arts. This plan would also include goals directly related to the individual's specific content needs.
It is important to note that educators are responsible for ensuring that their individual plan meets the state's recertification requirements for content. It is not the supervisor's responsibility to ensure that Individual Professional Development Plans include enough PDPs in content to satisfy the state requirements. In the review process, it would be helpful for supervisors to be familiar with state requirements in order to assist individuals with their planning.
Is there flexibility within the plan to accommodate modifications over time?Over the course of a licensure renewal period, schools and districts may refine their professional development goals, based on improvements in student achievement. Or, an individual's teaching assignment may change to a different subject or grade, which would alter some of the individual's goals.
Because individuals are required to revisit their plans every two years with a supervisor, individual plans should be developed in such a way as to build in flexibility.
For instance, an individual might clearly specify concrete, measurable goals for the first two years, and might include less specific goals for the next three. An individual whose school and district goals stress improving student achievement in History and Social Science might center her goals around increasing her own content knowledge in History and Social Science and set the following goals for Year One:
"Year One: I will enroll in a summer content institute on United States history from 1776 through World War I. As the major project for this course, I will partner with the teachers on my grade level to develop an interdisciplinary yearlong unit on immigration that is aligned to the Curriculum Frameworks and our district's curriculum. Together, we will organize a symposium at which students will present their research findings (tentatively scheduled on the school calendar for early Spring). I will document this work with my curriculum, and major assignments for the course, and a sampling of student research."
Year One activities are thus very specific; the school and other professional development providers may have already established a professional development calendar. Year Two activities may be broader and less specific. For instance:
"Year Two: I will participate in the scheduled district writing seminar to continue to improve my writing skills. As a result of this I will publish an article in an education journal. I will organize a seminar series for parents that builds on the same subject students will be studying. I will document this work through the article, through the plans for the seminars, and through letters and written feedback from seminar participants."
After Year Two, the individual will meet with her supervisor to modify (if necessary) the activities within the next two years of the plan. The goals for Years Three through Five might resemble the following.
"Year Three: I will enroll in another summer content institute, ideally on either World History or United States' history from 1939-the present. I will enroll in a course on differentiated instruction, through either a professional association or through a local institution of higher education. I will document this work through major projects completed for each course.
Year Four: I will develop lessons that support special needs students in my classroom. Documentation will include student work and progress toward IEP goals. I will attend a summer workshop on gifted and talented students.
Year Five: I will develop a curriculum unit with the teachers on my grade level that accommodates gifted and talented students in my classroom. Documentation will include lessons from the unit, and samplings of student work."
Will the proposed activities add to the educator's repertoire of skills and content knowledge?In their daily work, educators must draw on a wide range of skills and content knowledge. For teachers, this might mean including several different instructional strategies and forms of assessments that accommodate the many types of learners in their classrooms (including students with Individual Educational Plans, as well as gifted and talented students). For administrators, this might mean observing teachers and offering feedback, as well as working with students. Individual Professional Development Plans should help educators increase the breadth and depth of their repertoire of skills required by their positions.
Is the educator planning to participate in a range of meaningful and professionally relevant professional development during the recertification cycle?Recertification offers educators a chance to be lifelong learners. While the proposed activities should include a variety of different and meaningful activities, the activities should be relevant to their profession. For instance, a series of courses on ancient Chinese history may be interesting to the English/Language Arts teacher, but without a clear link to the subject and grade level being taught, may not be professionally relevant and should not be the entire focus of that individual's plan.
Individuals may be asked to justify the relevance of the proposed activities, and may be asked to identify how the proposed activities will enhance their skills and abilities.
Do the proposed activities address the Professional Standards for Teachers?Every teacher in Massachusetts must be able to demonstrate the Professional Standards for Teachers; those standards comprise the state's pedagogical requirements. Supervisors should be familiar with these standards and should consider whether the proposed activities will help teachers address the five categories within which all of the standards fall: Plans Curriculum and Instruction; Delivers Effective Instruction; Manages Classroom Climate and Operation; Promotes Equity; and Meets Professional Responsibilities.
In the documentation of the professional development activities, and in the biannual review, teachers should demonstrate each of the standards.
Approval of the plan means that 80% of the proposed PDPs in the plan are consistent with the educational goals of the school and/or district and that the plan is designed to enhance the ability of the educator to improve student learning. Supervisors do not have the authority to reject individual plans that are consistent with school and/or district educational goals and are designed to improve student learning.
The following standards must be applied when reviewing and approving Individual Professional Development Plans:
Approval of an individual professional development plan shall not be unreasonably withheld. A supervisor is obligated to approve an individual plan if the goals and proposed PDPs meet the standards for review and approval as outlined in the previous section. A supervisor cannot reject a plan because in the supervisor's opinion another activity would best meet the identified needs of the school or district. In other words, supervisors may not require an individual educator to participate in a specific professional development activity unless the activity is identified through collective bargaining. In addition, if the activities in an individual professional development plan are legitimately aligned with one school and/or district goal, the supervisor cannot reject the plan because the supervisor believes that the teacher should focus on another school and/or district goal.
A supervisor must grant or deny approval of a plan within 30 days of receipt of the plan. Denial must be accompanied by a written explanation for the failure to approve the plan. If a supervisor fails to act within 30 days, the educator may seek additional review provided by the regulations. Administrators providing additional local review must grant or deny approval of a plan within 14 days. If no decision has been made after 14 days, the educator may seek additional review from the department.
In the event that a plan is rejected by a supervisor, teachers and other educators who report to the principal may seek review of the denial from the superintendent of schools, principals may seek review from the school committee chairperson, and superintendents may seek review from the Department. An educator may then seek additional review from the Department, according to the provisions of 603 CMR 44.11.
An educator may appeal a supervisor's decision not to approve or endorse a professional development plan to the Commissioner after seeking any additional review available at the local level (pursuant to 603 CMR 44.04(1)(1)). To initiate such an appeal, the educator must submit a written request to the Commissioner within 30 days of the date on which the plan was rejected at the highest level of local review. The request should include:
The Department may contact the supervisor(s) involved and will consider the reasons given at the local level for the rejection of the plan. The Commissioner or his designee will make a final, independent determination regarding plan approval. The Commissioner will approve a plan if 80% of the proposed PDPs in the plan are consistent with the educational goals of the school and/or district and the plan is designed to enhance the ability of the educator to improve student learning. The Commissioner will apply two standards for approval:
Educators are required to review their individual plans with supervisors at least every two years to review goals and amend the plan if needed. If permitted by the guidelines set forth above, a supervisor may require an educator to amend the plan or may withdraw approval for a plan that had been previously approved, provided, however, that any PDPs that were earned consistently with an approved plan shall be deemed approved in applying for recertification. A supervisor may withdraw approval or require an amendment of a plan from any educator new to the district or school within three months of the educator's beginning employment in the new position.
Educators who are employed in a Massachusetts public school must include their supervisor's endorsement of their completed professional development plan with their Recertification Application.
A supervisor's endorsement indicates that the supervisor has reviewed the record of professional development activities maintained by the educator to ensure that the reported activities are consistent with the approved professional development plan. The Department requires supervisors to review the total number of PDPs earned to determine that 80% of the PDPs are consistent with the approved individual professional development plan.
A supervisor must grant or deny endorsement of a plan within 30 days of receipt of the plan. Denial must be accompanied by a written explanation for the failure to endorse the plan. If a supervisor fails to act within 30 days, the educator may seek additional review provided by the regulations. Administrators providing additional local review must grant or deny endorsement of a plan within 14 days. If no decision has been made after 14 days, the educator may seek additional review from the department as described above. In this case, the Commissioner or his designee will make an independent evaluation of whether the completed professional development activities were consistent with the approved professional development plan. The Commissioner will endorse the individual professional development plan if 80% of reported activities maintained by the educator are consistent with the approved professional development plan.
Last Updated: June 8, 2020
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 135 Santilli Highway, Everett, MA 02149
Voice: (781) 338-3000 TTY: (800) 439-2370
Disclaimer: A reference in this website to any specific commercial products, processes, or services, or the use of any trade, firm, or corporation name is for the information and convenience of the public and does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.