1. Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update

2. Shifting Thinking Assessment as Autopsy Assessment as Diagnostic Tools to Improve Leadership & Instruction Data Access Utilizing Data for Improving Instruction Educator QualityEducator Effectiveness Reflection for Improved Individual Teaching and Leadership Practice Reflection for Improved Collective Teaching and Leadership Practice

3. Communicating Our Values “Value” is at the root of the word “evaluation.” What we evaluate needs to come from what we value as a community. Perception of Educating Students Reality of Educating Students Student Learning Educator Growth

4. Why does this matter for our students? Change in Workplace Skill Demand in the United States: 1969 - 1999 Skill Category Change Complex Communication +14% Expert thinking and problem solving +8% Routine manual -2% Non-routine manual -5% Routine cognitive -8% “The one really competitive skill is the skill of being able to learn. That is why education – as opposed to training – is so important. Not only does education confer skills, but it also produces the ability to develop new skills.” Papert (1998) Wiliam (2012)

5. Topics of Session: Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project – Teacher and Principal Evaluation System Overview Instructional and Leadership Frameworks Definitions of classroom teacher and principal Definitions of comprehensive and focused evaluations Implementation details – ESSB 5895 & ESEA Flexibility Waiver Summative Methodology Student Growth within Teacher and Principal Evaluation – Support and Resources Rater Agreement Definition/Principal Training eVAL Management System

6. TPEP Core Principles The critical importance of teacher and leadership quality. The professional nature of teaching and leading a school. The complex relationship between the system for teacher and principal evaluation and district systems and negotiations. The belief in professional learning as an underpinning of the new evaluation system. The understanding that the career continuum must be addressed in the new evaluation system. The system must determine the balance of “inputs or acts” and “outputs or results.” “We Can’t Fire Our Way to Finland”

7. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

8. Background Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP) Anacortes Central Valley Kennewick North Thurston North Mason Othello Snohomish Wenatchee ESD 101 Consortium Almira Davenport Liberty Medical Lake Pullman Reardan-Edwall Wellpinit Wilbur

9. Steering Committee

10. Influences on TPEP Development 2012 2012- ESSB 5895 ESEA Flexibility Waiver TPEP Pilot Sites & Steering Cmte Instructional and Leadership Framework Authors Research and Best Practice E2SSB 6696 & Race to the Top Washington State Evaluation and Professional Growth System 2010-12

11. Evaluation Components Evaluation Component5895 Criteria (RCW)Stays the same Criteria DefinitionsStays the same Instructional/Leadership Frameworks 3 Approved Frameworks OSPI –September 1, 2012 4-Tiered SystemUnsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Final Summative Scoring Methodology OSPI –December 2012 Rulemaking has started as of August 21 st, 2012 Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory Delineation Years 1-5 between 1 and 2 Years 5 + between 2 and 3 (2 years in a row or 2 out of 3 years) Measures and EvidenceObservation* and Student Growth*(*Required in RCW) Artifacts and other Evidence related to Framework Rubrics

12. INSTRUCTIONAL AND LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORKS Teacher and Principal Evaluation Criteria

13. Changes in Teacher & Principal Evaluation Criteria Current Teacher Evaluation Criteria New Teacher Evaluation Criteria 1.Instructional skill 2.Classroom management 3.Professional preparation and scholarship 4.Effort toward improvement when needed 5.Handling of student discipline and attendant problems 6.Interest in teaching pupils 7.Knowledge of subject matter 1.Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement 2.Demonstrating effective teaching practices 3.Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs 4.Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum 5.Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment 6.Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning 7.Communicating with parents and school community 8.Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focus on improving instructional practice and student learning Current Principal Evaluation Criteria New Principal Evaluation Criteria 1.Knowledge of, experience in and training in recognizing good professional performance, capabilities and development 2.School administration and management 3.School finance 4.Professional preparation and scholarship 5.Effort toward improvement when needed 6.Interest in pupils, employees, patrons and subjects taught in school 7.Leadership 8.Ability and performance of evaluation of school personnel 1.Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff 2.Providing for school safety 3.Leads development, implementation and evaluation of a data-driven plan for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements 4.Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessment with state and local district learning goals 5.Monitoring, assisting and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices 6.Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities 7.Partnering with the school community to promote student learning 8.Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap

15. CLASSROOM TEACHER & PRINCIPAL COMPREHENSIVE & FOCUSED EVALUATIONS Definitions…

16. “Certificated Classroom Teacher” Definition Designed for “classroom teachers” Built around the criteria in RCW Teachers who provide academically- focused instruction to students may be considered in the new evaluation system. Districts are encouraged to review the criteria and instructional frameworks for best fit.

17. Classroom Teacher Classroom Teachers Includes: English LA Math Special Education Music PE Art CTE May Include: Teacher-Librarians Instructional Coaches Non-Classroom Teachers ESA School Counselors, SLP, OT, PT, School Nurses Districts may consider creating four- tiered systems for non-classroom teachers, but are advised to consider the design and implementation of new evaluation systems are considerable. Staff who provide academically -focused instruction to students

18. Comprehensive Evaluation Teachers Assesses all 8 evaluation criteria. All criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation rating. Student Growth Rubrics embedded in Criterion. (3, 6, 8) All provisional classroom teachers and any classroom teacher not on level 3 or level 4 receive Comprehensive evaluation. All classroom teachers shall receive a comprehensive summative evaluation at least once every four years.

19. “Principal” Definition Designed for certificated principals and assistant principals Built around the criteria in RCW Districts are encouraged to review the criteria and leadership frameworks for best fit.

20. Comprehensive Evaluation Principals Assesses all 8 evaluation criteria. All criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation rating. Student Growth Rubrics embedded in Criterion. (3,5,8) “Due to the importance of instructional leadership and assuring rater agreement among evaluators, particularly those evaluating teacher performance, school districts are encouraged to conduct comprehensive summative evaluations of principal performance on an annual basis.” Section 1, (12 c(v))

21. Criteria 2 Criteria 1 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Frameworks + Student Growth Rubrics Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks State determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory

22. Focused Evaluation Certificated Classroom Teachers Includes an assessment of one of the eight criterion. Student Growth Rubrics from one of the three criterion – If a teacher chooses 3,6 or 8; their accompanying student growth rubrics will be used. – If a teacher chooses Criterion 1,2,4,5,7, the accompanying student growth rubrics from Criterion 3 or 6 will be used. Approved by the teacher ‘s evaluator. A focused evaluation must be performed in any year that a comprehensive evaluation is not scheduled.

23. Criteria 1 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Framework Components + Student Growth Rubrics (3, 6, 8 use their SG rubrics All others use Criterion 3 or 6 SG rubrics) Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Student Growth Measures Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Criteria 2 One Criterion is chosen and approved by evaluator Focused Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

24. Focused Evaluation Principals and Assistant Principals Includes an assessment of one of the eight criterion. Student Growth Rubrics from one of the three criterion – The focused evaluation will include the student growth rubric row selected by the principal or assistant principal. Criterion and Student Growth Rubric Rows must be approved by the principal’s evaluator. A focused evaluation must be performed in any year that a comprehensive evaluation is not scheduled.

25. Implementation Schedule Both E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895 have an implementation phase-in of 2013-14. Steering committee recommends all districts consider moving to the new evaluation criteria for all classroom teachers and principals in 2013-14, with some classroom teachers on the focused and some on the comprehensive. Work is being done on the implementation definition now and information will be out soon from the TPEP steering committee. ESSB 5895 requires provisional or probationary teachers, and principals with fewer than 3 consecutive years of experience, unsatisfactory performance, or new to the district to be transitioned first. Nothing prevents earlier transition. All districts must begin implementation in 2013-14 school year.

26. 2013-142014-152015-162016-17 Provisional Teachers First Year Comprehensive Provisional Teachers Second Year Comprehensive Provisional Teachers Third Year Comprehensive Probationary Classroom Teachers Comprehensive Non-Provisional or Non-Probationary Classroom Teachers (4 years of satisfactory evaluations) 25% on Comp 75% on Focused 25% on Comp 75% on Focused 25% on Comp 75% on Focused 25% on Comp 75% on Focused Four Year Implementation Plan

27. 2013-142014-152015-162016-17 Provisional Teachers First Year 17 FTE Required: Comp 15 FTE Required: Comp 10 FTE Required: Comp 15 FTE Required: Comp Provisional Teachers Second Year 16 FTE Required: Comp 17 FTE Required: Comp 15 FTE Required: Comp 10 FTE Required: Comp Provisional Teachers Third Year 8 FTE Required: Comp 16 FTE Required: Comp 17 FTE Required: Comp 15 FTE Required: Comp Total Provisional 41 FTE48 FTE42 FTE40 FTE Probationary Classroom Teachers 1 FTE Required: Comp 3 FTE Required: Comp 4 FTE Required: Comp 3 FTE Required: Comp Non-Provisional or Non-Probationary Classroom Teachers (4 years of satisfactory evaluations) Total: 378 FTE Comp: 75 Focused: 303 Total: 369 FTE Comp: 110 Focused: 259 Total: 374 FTE Comp: 125 Focused: 249 Total: 377 FTE Comp: 94 Focused: 283 Total teachers on a Comprehensive: 117 161171137 Total teachers on a Focused: 303279259293 Sample District: Total Number of Classroom Teachers: 420 Total Student FTE: 8,423

28. SUMMATIVE SCORING METHODOLOGY STUDENT GROWTH MEASURES ESSB 5895 & ESEA Waiver

29. Summative Rating Process Overview ESSB 5895 requires OSPI to determine a summative scoring methodology by Dec. 1, 2012 Summative Rating is determined through a “Raw Score” Model Generated from the TPEP Pilot Sites and approved by the TPEP Steering Committee Used for both the teacher and principal evaluation systems. Determination of overall criterion score based on both: – Instructional framework rubrics – Student growth rubrics

30. The RAW Score Model Teaching Criteria * Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubrics Overall Criterion Scores Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement 3 Criterion 2: Demonstrating effective teaching practices 4 *Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs 3 Criterion 4: Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum 2 Criterion 5: Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment 3 *Criterion 6: Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning 2 Criterion 7: Communicating and collaborating with parents and school community 3 *Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning 2 Total Summative Score22 Evaluators place teachers into preliminary summative rating categories based on score bands. As illustrated above, this teacher would receive a preliminary overall summative rating of Proficient. OSPI Approved Summative Scoring Band 8-1415-2122-2829-32 1 Unsatisfactory 2 Basic 3 Proficient 4 Distinguished 30

31. Criteria 2 Criteria 1 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Frameworks + Student Growth Rubrics Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Student Growth Measures (From 3 specific criteria) Student Growth Measures (From 3 specific criteria) State determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Student Growth Impact Ratings: Low, Average, High Student Growth Impact Ratings: Low, Average, High District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory

32. ESSB 5895 Establishes New Definitions Around Student Growth Measures Both E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895 contain language around student growth including: Student growth data that is relevant to the teacher and subject matter must be a factor in the evaluation process and must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools. Student growth means the change in student achievement between two points in time. Changes… Student growth data must be a substantial factor in evaluating the summative performance of certificated classroom teachers for at least three of the evaluation criteria. Student growth data elements may include the teacher’s performance as a member of a grade-level, subject matter, or other instructional team within a school when the use of this data is relevant and appropriate.

33. Defining Key Terms Student Achievement: The status of subject- matter knowledge, understandings, and skills at one point in time. Student Growth (Learning): The growth in subject-matter knowledge, understandings, and skill over time.

34. It is student growth, not student achievement, that is relevant in demonstrating impacts teacher and principals have on students. Formal Tests in Core Subjects Only Knowledge and Learning that can be Measured All Classroom Learning State-based Tools District and School-Based Tools Classroom- based Tools

35. Student Growth Rubrics The TPEP steering committee organizations approved statewide rubrics for student growth to ensure consistency in implementation of the evaluation system across Washington State. The rubrics for student growth describe both goal-setting and outputs of student learning. OSPI has provided student growth rubrics for each of the three criterion – Teachers #3, #6, and #8 – Principals #3, #5, and #8

36. Using District, School, and Classroom-based Data (Teachers) Five Student Growth Criteria – 3.1 Establish Student Growth Goals Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/ opportunity gap) – 3.2 Achievement of Student Growth Goals Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/ opportunity gap) – 6.1 Establish Student Growth Goals using Multiple Student Data Elements Re: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to school and district goals – 6.2 Achievement of Student Growth Goals Re: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to school and district goals – 8.1 Establish Team Student Growth Goals Re: Teacher as part of a grade-level, content area, or other school/district team 36

37. Student Growth Teacher Rubric Language Student Growth Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs. Student Growth 3.1: Establish Student Growth Goal(s) UnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished Does not establish student growth goals or establishes inappropriate goals for subgroups of students not reaching full learning potential. Goals do not identify multiple, high- quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Establishes appropriate student growth goals for subgroups of students not reaching full learning potential. Goals do not identify multiple, high- quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Establishes appropriate student growth goals for subgroups of students not reaching full learning potential. Goals identify multiple, high-quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Establishes appropriate student growth goals for subgroups of students not reaching full potential in collaboration with students, parents, and other school staff. Goals identify multiple, high- quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Student Growth 3.2: Achievement of Student Growth Goal(s) UnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished Growth or achievement data from at least two points in time shows no evidence of growth for most students. Multiple sources of growth or achievement data from at least two points in time show some evidence of growth for some students. Multiple sources of growth or achievement data from at least two points in time show clear evidence of growth for most students. Multiple sources of growth or achievement data from at least two points in time show evidence of high growth for all or nearly all students. 37

38. Student Growth Principal Rubric Language Student Growth Criterion 3: Leading the development, implementation and evaluation of a data-driven plan for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements. 3.4 Assists staff to use data to guide, modify and improve classroom teaching and learning UnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished Does not assist staff to use multiple types of data to reflect on effectiveness of lessons, guide lesson and assessment development, differentiate instruction, and to determine whether re-teaching, practice or moving forward is appropriate; focuses more on student characteristics rather than the actions of teachers; no improvement in student academic achievement Occasionally assists staff to use multiple types of data to reflect on effectiveness of lessons, guide lesson and assessment development, differentiate instruction, and to determine whether re-teaching, practice or moving forward is appropriate; strategies result in incomplete relationship between the actions of teachers and the impact on student achievement; minimum improvement in student academic growth Regularly assists staff to use multiple types of data to reflect on effectiveness of lessons, guide lesson and assessment development, differentiate instruction (highly achieving as well as non- proficient) and to determine whether re- teaching, practice or moving forward with instruction is appropriate at both the group and individual level; strategies result in clear relationship between the actions of teachers and the impact on student achievement; demonstrated and measureable improvements in student academic growth readily apparent Is proficient AND demonstrates leadership by routinely and consistently assisting teachers to use multiple types of data to reflect on effectiveness of lessons, guide lesson and assessment development, differentiate instruction, and to determine whether re- teaching, practice or moving forward with instruction is appropriate at both the group and individual level; explicitly demonstrates consistent and measurable improvements in student academic growth

39. Student Growth Rubric and Rating (Teachers Only) Student GrowthGoal-Setting Score Based on Rubric Student Growth* Score Based on Rubric Overall Student Growth Criterion Score Criterion 332**5 Criterion 622**4 Criterion 82 N/A 2 Student Growth Score7411 *Must include a minimum of two student growth measures (i.e., state-, district-, school-, and classroom-based measures). ** A student growth score of “1” in any of the student growth rubrics will result in a Low growth rating. Evaluators place teachers into summative rating categories based on score bands. As illustrated below, this teacher would receive a low student growth rating OSPI Approved Student Growth Impact Rating Scoring Band 5-1213-1718-20 LowAverageHigh 39

40. Criterion Scoring 1. guidance from the framework authors (meeting with them this Thursday) 2. Met with steering committee yesterday about our decision moving forward 3. Working on developing 2-3 options for districts to consider. 4. Shooting for mid-February for little “g” guidance.

41. Combining Measures Instructional or Leadership Practice Professional Practice Impact on Student Growth Self-Assessment, goal setting and final summative ratings based on the framework and student growth rubrics.

42. Summative Rating & Impact on Student Learning Matrix Summative Rating Distinguished Proficient Rating Student Growth Inquiry Distinguished Rating Proficient Proficient Rating Student Growth Inquiry Proficient Rating Basic Basic Rating Student Growth Inquiry Basic Rating Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Rating Plan of Improvement Consequences as a result of Intersection between Summative Rating and Impact on Student Learning Rating LowAverageHigh Impact on Student Learning 42

43. Student Growth Inquiry Consequences: Within two months of receiving the low student growth score or at the beginning of the following school year, whichever is later, one or more of the following must be initiated by the evaluator: Triangulate student growth measure with other evidence (including observation, artifacts and student evidence) and additional levels of student growth based on classroom, school, district and state- based tools; Examine extenuating circumstances possibly including: goal setting process/expectations, student attendance, and curriculum/assessment alignment; Schedule monthly conferences with the teacher to discuss/revise goals, progress toward meeting goals, and best practices; and/or Create and implement a professional development plan to address student growth areas.

44. Student Growth- What’s Next… Convening a group of educators to analyze the student growth process and determine next steps with regard to districts implementation of this portion of the TPEP work. It will be an initial step in looking at the implementation in the following areas: 1. Assessment Literacy 2. Student Growth Rubrics 3. Student Growth Measures 4. Examples of Student Growth Goals OSPI and the TPEP steering committee feel it is critical that this process is authentic and relevant to the existing context in districts.

45. RATER AGREEMENT Principal and Administrator Training

46. Rater Agreement Background The TPEP project has relied heavily on the growing body of research, the framework authors and the practical input from practitioners in the pilot sites to create a “working definition” of rater agreement for the 2012-13 school year. The new law requires that evaluators of both teachers and principals “must engage in professional development designed to implement the revised systems and maximize rater agreement.”

47. Rater Agreement Definition The extent to which the scores between the raters have consistency and accuracy against predetermined standards. The predetermined standards are the instructional and leadership frameworks and rubrics that define the basis for summative criterion level scores.

48. Stages of Rater Agreement 2-3 Day Foundational Training Ongoing Rater Agreement Training

49. EVAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Support and Resources

50. Background eVAL Management System eVAL is a web-based tool designed to manage the evaluation process and documentation. Developed in partnership with the Washington Education Association, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Educational Service District 113. eVAL is: a free resource developed and refined during a year of use within the Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot districts; personalized for each district for their instructional framework, resources, and documents; voluntary for all districts, who can use as many or as few of eVAL’s features as they’d like (or none at all); and extremely secure with limited access physically and virtually to its servers.

52. How does our district get started with eVAL? Districts must do 4 things: 1. Contact OSPI to notify Michaela (michaela.miller@k12.wa.us) of their framework choices* 2. Setup staff roles in EDS (see directions on our TPEP/eVAL http://tpep-wa.org/resources/eval/)http://tpep-wa.org/resources/eval/ 3. Have staff login to eVAL through EDS 4. Have either the district or school admin, (in eVAL) assign evaluators to those they evaluate

53. When systems align and work together, real progress is made.

54. Follow Us http://www.tpep-wa.org Follow us @waOSPI_TPEP Search for “TPEP” in the iTunes Store for our videos