1. Slide 1 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP Teacher & Principal Evaluation Washington State TPEP K-20 April 21 st, 2011

2. Slide 2 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP Agenda 8:30am-9:00am- Overview and Introductions – Review Evaluation Workbook & Upcoming Site Visits 9:00am-9:30am- Dr. Laura Goe 9:30am-10:00am- Questions and Feedback 10:00am-11:00am- Final Summative Scoring Overview Presentation – Planning for May and June TPEP meetings – Updates from Legislature – Survey for next year (survey monkey sent after K-20) 11:00am-12:00pm- TPEP Team Input and Discussion for Steering Committee

3. Slide 3 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP May Meeting Schedule

4. Slide 4 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP May TPEP Visits 1. Before the May meetings, please have the Evaluation Model Workbook completed and emailed back to OSPI by May 9 th for our TPEP Steering Committee meeting on May 10 th. 2. We will use the Evaluation Model Workbook as our discussion guide for those site visits. 3. During the visit we will also discuss the pilot data collection and implementation. 4. We intend to put up the TPEP DRAFT evaluation models on our TPEP website the week of May 23- 28 th, 2011.

5. Slide 5 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP TPEP Evaluation Model Workbook Note: This is for the teacher workbook; we are working with AWSP on the principal workbook.

6. Slide 6 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP DR. LAURA GOE, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR RESEARCH & DISSEMINATION, NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CENTER FOR TEACHER QUALITY Overview of Summative Evaluation

7. Slide 7 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP “The Need for a new Educator Evaluation System” “A well functioning teacher or principal evaluation system goes beyond the checklists commonly used in schools. The system must specify what will be measured, define how it will be measured, clarify how the measures will be consistent, and lay out a plan for providing feedback and continuous support. It will also highlight how to use the evaluation results to improve school culture, teacher practice, and student outcomes.”

8. Slide 8 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP Evidence What do We Use as Evidence to Measure Teacher Effectiveness?

9. Reliability and Validity Validity: A test is valid when it measures what it’s supposed to measure. How valid a test depends on its purpose—for example, a ruler may be a valid measuring device for length, but isn’t very valid for measuring volume. Reliability: If a test is reliable, it yields consistent results. For example, a test can be reliable but not valid, both reliable and valid, or neither.

10. Criteria 1 Unsatisfactory 2 Basic 3 Proficient 4 Distinguished Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Criterion 6 Criterion 7 Criterion 8 Final Summative Evaluation 1 Unsatisfactory 2 Basic 3 Proficient 4 Distinguished Final Summative Descriptors Teachers do not demonstrate the necessary content knowledge, pedagogical competence, and professional practice required to improve student learning. Does not meet standard Teachers demonstrate a basic level of content knowledge, pedagogical competence, and professional practice to improve student learning. Teachers in this category also engage in activities designed for improvement and growth towards becoming proficient. Teachers rated in this category consistently demonstrate a proficient level of content knowledge, pedagogical competence, and professional practice to improve student learning. Teachers rated in this category consistently demonstrate an exceptional level of content knowledge, pedagogical competence, and professional practice to improve student learning. Solid/Research-based Instructional Framework Distinguishable and Scored Cut Score that Promotes growth and prevents stagnation

11. How do we get to a final summative score? Models To Consider… Proficiency Progression Model Conditions Model Mathematical Formula Model Percentage/Points Model Raw Score Model – Note: The steering committee wanted to share these options. Some of these models listed can be combined, but we are not endorsing one over another. Please consider these in your pilots and discuss implications. However, in order to truly “study” the pilots next year, we must know how we are getting at these summative scores.

12. Slide 12 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP Proficiency Progression Model Choose the area(s) from the criteria that are most critical for proficiency the first year. Stair step proficiency requirements by adding criteria each year until all proficient. Example: Have to be proficient in safety criterion first year (no more then 1 unsat) 3 out of the 8 criteria proficient in year two (no more than 1 unsat) 5 out of the 8 criteria proficient in year three and beyond (no unsats)

13. Slide 13 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP Potential Pros Allows for going deeper (richer conversations) around fewer criteria. Provides more targeted evaluations for new teachers. Less burdensome on principal time when the focus is limited. OTHERS?? Potential Cons Does not address all the criteria Still does not get at the actual evaluation process and determination of score of proficient. Does this set up a district for drift after a couple of years? OTHERS?? Proficiency Progression Model

15. Slide 15 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP Potential Pros Supports teachers at different points in career and recognizes need to address those needs OTHERS?? Potential Cons Still does not get at the actual evaluation process and determination ofa score of proficient. OTHERS?? Conditions Model

16. Qualitative/Holistic Model Review the observed and collected evidence and holistically come up with a qualitative rating for each teacher. Rubric and Observations (and possible other evidence) to determine judgment for final summative placement 1234

17. Slide 17 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP Potential Pros Ownership of process would be school-based. OTHERS?? Potential Cons Ownership of process would be school-based. Still does not get at the actual evaluation process and determination of scores. Professional Development and inter-rater reliability would be very hard to carry out. OTHERS?? Qualitative/Holistic Model

18. Slide 18 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP Mathematical Formula Model Add up each component and divide by number of components to drive out a number for each criterion. Do the same for each criterion to finalize summative ratings. See examples on next two slides

19. Undeveloped EmergingProficientDistinguished 1234Score 1.1 Expectations for learning and achievement: X 4 1.2 Conveying Rigorous Expectations: X 2 1.3 Results Driven: X 1 1.4 Learning activities: X 2 1.5 Value, sequence, and alignment: X 4 CRITERION No. 1 – Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement. 2.6 Score

20. Criteria 1234Score? High Expectations 2.6 Effective teaching practices 1 Individual Student Needs 4 Focus on content and curriculum 2 Safe Positive Learning environment 1 Student data to modify instruction & improve learning 2 Communicate with parents and school community 4 Collaborative and collegial practices to improve student learning 4 Score? ???? 2.625 3

21. Mathematical Formula Model Potential Pros Easy to calculate/boils it down to a simple formula. Easy to explain to constituents/commmunity etc. OTHERS?? Potential Cons Too fine grained/useful in a more controlled assessment process (i.e. AP scoring, National Board Scoring) Relies on partial scores and there is no support for using decimal places in the legislation. (i.e. 2.6 Is that a 3 or a 2?) OTHERS??

22. Percentage and/or Points Model Assign percentages or points to each form of evidence (Example: Observations are worth 65%, Artifacts – 15%, Impacts on student learning 15%, and self evaluation/reflection 5%.) Observation 65% Artifacts 15% Impact on Student Learning 15% Self Assessment & Reflection 5% Rating based on 100 Points or Percentile Used to Identify Final summative Score 1234

23. Slide 23 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP Potential Pros Somewhat defines the targets of the evaluation process for both teachers and principals. Being used across the country in many places. OTHERS?? Potential Cons Inter-rater reliability a must depending on the percentage of the total score. Being used across the country in many places. OTHERS?? Percentage/Points Model

24. CriteriaObservationsArtifactsImpact on Student Learning Self Assessment Score Criterion 1 2 Criterion 2 2 Criterion 3 2 Criterion 4 3 Criterion 5 2 Criterion 6 3 Criterion 7 4 Criterion 8 3 1234 8-1213-2021-2829-36 Evidence Raw Score Range Raw Score Model

25. CriteriaObservationsArtifactsImpact on Student Learning Self Assessment Score Criterion 1 2 Criterion 2 2 Criterion 3 2 Criterion 4 3 Criterion 5 2 Criterion 6 3 Criterion 7 4 Criterion 8 3 1234 8-1213-2021-2829-36 Evidence Raw Score Range Raw Score/Conditions Hybrid Model Must be proficient by 5 th year Unsat in safety criterion is overall unsat Must have five criteria at proficient level or above to be proficient Cannot have unsat and be proficient Three unsats equates to an overall unsat Example Conditions

26. Slide 26 Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot – Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Visit our blog & resource site: http://tpep-wa.org – Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEPhttp://tpep-wa.orghttp://www.twitter.com/waOSPI_TPEP Potential Pros Can be a driving at a true standards-based approach to evaluation. Allows for conversation and dialogue within a structured evaluation system. By combining the raw score and conditions can make the system attend to teachers at different stages in their career. OTHERS?? Potential Cons Discussion of which evidence/measures still needs to take place (district- wide decision so there is some confidence in the final scores?) OTHERS?? Raw Score/Conditions Model

27. Whole System Questions How do you ensure professional development to implement new evaluation systems in your chosen summative model? How does your model ensure inter-rater reliability across your district? Can you drive out meaningful scores across the district/state through one summative scoring model over another? Are there summative scoring models that can be combined to create a more streamlined and intentional system that holds teachers accountable and encourages professional growth?

28. What we need from you… 1. Feedback on the Evaluation Workbook. – Criteria Definitions – Page 5 – Summative Statements – Page 14 – Whole package (i.e. does it make sense? Will it make sense within your TPEP district? Outside your TPEP district?)

29. Legislative Update TPEP Executive and Legislative Budget Proposals Governor Maintains the funding for the TPEP districts/consortium for the biennium. Funds additional preparing and implementation grants for districts outside of TPEP for the 2012-13 SY. More details available at http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget11/default.asphttp://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget11/default.asp House Maintains the funding for the TPEP districts/consortium for the biennium. Funds additional preparing and implementation grants for districts outside of TPEP for the 2012-13 SY. (different from the Governor’s proposal) More details available at http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/detail/2011/ho1113p.asphttp://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/detail/2011/ho1113p.asp Senate Maintains the funding for the TPEP districts/consortium for the biennium. Does not include additional funding for preparing and implementation grants for districts outside of TPEP for the 2012-13 SY. More details available at http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/detail/2011/so1113p.asp.http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/detail/2011/so1113p.asp