1. Welcome Our presentation will begin shortly. TPEP: Taking it to the next level Send your questions via chat to be answered in our Q&A session at the end of the webinar.

2. Dr. Jonelle Adams Executive Director Member of TPEP Steering Committee Phil Gore Director of Leadership Development Services Today’s featured speakers

3. This webinar covers the latest rules from OSPI and policy changes for 2013-2014.

4. Today’s agenda 12:02 p.m. Welcome and introductions 12:05 p.m. TPEP: Taking it to the next level Understand TPEP implementation process. Identify the board’s role in teacher and principal effectiveness. Recognize TPEP implications for your policy changes and adoption. Plan for implementation of TPEP in 2013-2014. 12:40 p.m. Questions and answers

5. Shifting thinking Educator effectiveness Educator quality Using data to improve instruction Data access Assessment as diagnostic tools to improve leadership and instruction Assessment as autopsy Reflection for improved collective teaching and leadership practice Reflection for improved individual teaching and leadership practice

6. 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. Student Learning Educator Growth

7. Evaluation components Evaluation Component5895 Criteria (RCW)Stays the same Criteria DefinitionsStays the same Instructional/Leadership Frameworks3 Approved Frameworks OSPI –September 1, 2012 4-Tiered SystemUnsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, Distinguished Final Summative Scoring MethodologyOSPI –December 2012 Rulemaking has started as of August 21, 2012 Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory DelineationYears 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

8. Comprehensive Evaluation: Teachers Assesses all eight 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.

9. Comprehensive Evaluation: Principals Assesses all eight 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))

10. Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

11. 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.

12. Focused Evaluation: Summative Scoring Process

13. 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. Focused Evaluation: Principals and Assistant Principals

14. SUMMATIVE SCORING METHODOLOGY STUDENT GROWTH MEASURES ESSB 5895 and ESEA Waiver

15. Summative Rating Process Overview ESSB 5895 requires OSPI to determine a summative scoring methodology by December 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

16. The RAW Score Model 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.

17. Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

18. 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.

19. It is student growth, not student achievement, that is relevant in demonstrating impacts teachers and principals have on students. Knowledge and Learning that can be Measured All Classroom Learning State-based Tools District and School-Based Tools Classroom- based Tools Formal Tests in Core Subjects Only 19

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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 above, this teacher would receive a low student growth rating OSPI Approved Student Growth Impact Rating Scoring Band 5-1213-1718-20 LowAverageHigh Student growth rubric and rating (teachers only)

23. 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.

24. 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 Summative rating and impact on student learning matrix 24

25. 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.

26. Student growth data examples State-Based Tools –e.g., MSP, HSPE, EOCs, SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) District-Based Tools –e.g., MAP, AIMS Web, SBAC interim, district writing assessments, fluency checks, RBAs, MBAs School-Based Tools –e.g., content area, grade-level or other school team assessments Classroom-Based Tools –Applies to all teachers

27. Focus on district-, school- and classroom-based tools 1.OSPI recommends focusing on four areas: 2.Developing Assessment Literacy in ALL Staff 3.Unpacking Student Learning Rubric Language 4.Student Learning Goal Setting –Questions to Ask: Priority of Content: Is the student learning goal focused on the right material? Rigor of Target: Does the target represent an appropriate amount of student learning for the specified interval of instruction? Quality of Evidence: Will the evidence source(s) allow for clear, accurate measurement of student learning? 5.Determining and Using Measures to Evaluate Student Learning Goals

28. Bargaining framework RCWs WACs/Rules OSPI Guidance Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Raw Score Methodology Who? Is in the new system? What? Evidence will count for each criteria? How much? Evidence will be required and what is the quality? FLEXIBILITY IS THE KEY!

29. Calibration is important! Districts must provide calibration training for principals and administrators (maximize rater agreement) on: –Observation of Teaching and Leadership Practice –Student Growth Goal Setting and Use of Measures/Evidence of Student Learning –And suggested…. –Goal setting, Self-assessment, Artifacts and Other Evidence Related to Frameworks –Overall Expectations of Teacher and Leader Professional Responsibilities

30. Next steps Adopt new policy, procedure and implementation schedule Bargain / discuss / watch Rater agreement strategy Resolve current probationary cases Other (i.e., pilot option, consider minor modifications)

31. 31 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 31

32. Immediate action Boards adopt Implementation Plan by June 2013 Boards adopt Instructional and Leadership frameworks by June 2013 Start review process of current policy 5240 and procedure 5240 by June 2013 Boards adopt the new policy by September 2013

33. TPEP’s name is changing to its new name: Professional Growth and Evaluation System September 1, 2013

34. Evaluation of staff Paragraph 1 The board recognizes that the professional growth and evaluation of individual employees is important to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the school district.

35. Evaluation of staff Paragraph 2 By September 1, 2013, pursuant to state law implementing the Professional Growth and Evaluation System, the board will establish a revised evaluation process using a four-level rating system for all certificated classroom teachers, certificated principals and assistant principals.

36. Paragraph 3 The evaluation system will use the minimum criteria developed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The four-level rating system will describe the performance of certificated classroom teachers, certificated principals and assistant principals along a continuum that indicates the extent to which evaluative criteria have been met or exceeded. Student growth data, defined as the change in student achievement between two points in time, must be a substantial factor in the evaluation process and must be based on multiple measures, including classroom, school, district and state- based tools. Evaluation of staff

37. Paragraph 4 Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, all certificated classroom teachers, principals and assistant principals will be evaluated on either a comprehensive or focused evaluation using the new state criteria. By the end of the 2016-2017 school year, all certificated classroom teachers on a continuing contract will complete a comprehensive evaluation. Evaluation of staff

38. Paragraph 5 Beginning with the 2015-16 school year, valuation results for certificated classroom teachers, certificated principals and assistant principals must be used as one of multiple factors in making human resource and personnel decisions. Human resource decisions include, but are not limited to, employee assignment, including the consideration of an agreement to an assignment by an appropriate teacher, principal and superintendent and reduction in force. The district will not be limited in its ability to collectively bargain how the multiple factors will be used in making human resource and personnel decisions, but the evaluation results must be a factor. Evaluation of staff

39. Paragraph 6 The failure of any evaluator to evaluate or supervise or cause the evaluation or supervision of certificated classroom teachers, certificated support personnel or administrators in accordance with the revised evaluation system, when it is his or her specific duty to do so, will be sufficient cause for the non-renewal of any such evaluator’s contract under RCW 28A.405.210 or the discharge of such evaluator under RCW 28A.405.300. Evaluation of staff

40. DEFINITION Paragraph 1: “Certificated classroom teacher” means an employee who provides academically-focused instruction to students and holds one or more of the certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79-A-140(1) through (3) and (6)(a) through (e) and (g). Certificated Classroom Teachers

41. REQUIREMENTS Paragraph 2: The performance of certificated classroom teachers will be observed twice a year, for a total observation time of not less than sixty (60) minutes. New staff will be observed for the purpose of evaluation at least once for a total observation time of not less than thirty (30) minutes within ninety (90) calendar days after employment. An employee in the third year of provisional status will be observed at least three times for a total observation time of not less than ninety (90) minutes.

42. REQUIREMENTS Paragraph 3 All certified classroom teachers will receive a comprehensive summative evaluation at least once every four years. A comprehensive summative evaluation assesses all eight evaluation criteria applicable to that certificated classroom teacher and all criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. A certificated classroom teacher who is a provisional employee under RCW 28A.405.220 or who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of Level 1 or Level 2 in the previous school year, or four (4) years of satisfactory evaluations in the district, will receive an annual comprehensive summative evaluation. Certificated Classroom Teachers

43. REQUIREMENTS Paragraph 4 In the years when a comprehensive summative evaluation is not required, certificated classroom teachers who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of Level 3 or 4 in the previous school year will receive a focused evaluation. A focused evaluation includes an assessment of one of the eight criteria selected for a performance rating plus professional growth activities specifically linked to the selected criteria. Certificated Classroom Teachers

44. REQUIREMENTS Paragraph 5 A certificated classroom teacher whose performance does not meet minimum requirements of the new or existing RCW, whichever is applicable to that staff member, will be notified in writing of the specific deficiencies and afforded a reasonable program for improvement. Certificated Classroom Teachers

45. Paragraph 1 “Certificated principal,” “principal,” and “assistant principal,” mean an employee who supervises the operation and management of a school as provided by RCW 28A.400.100. and holds certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79A-140(4)(a) or (6)(h). 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 evaluation of principal performance on an annual basis. Certificated Principals and Assistant Principals

46. Paragraph 2 A comprehensive summative evaluation assesses all eight evaluation criteria applicable to that staff member and all criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. The following will receive an annual comprehensive summative evaluation: 1) principals in the first three consecutive school years of employment as a principal, 2) principals previously employed as a principal by another school district in the state of Washington for three or more consecutive school years and in the first full year as a principal in the school district and 3) any principal who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of Level 1 or Level 2 in the previous school year. Certificated Principals and Assistant Principals

47. Paragraph 3 In the years when a comprehensive summative evaluation is not required, staff who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of Level 3 or 4 in the previous school year is required to receive a focused evaluation. A focused evaluation includes an assessment of one of the eight criteria selected for a performance rating plus professional growth activities specifically linked to the selected criteria. Certificated Principals and Assistant Principals

48. Paragraph 4 A principal whose performance does not meet minimum requirements will be notified in writing of the specific deficiencies and afforded a reasonable program for improvement. Certificated Principals and Assistant Principals

49. Paragraph 1 “Certificated support personnel” and “certificated support person” mean a certificated employee who provides services to students and holds one or more of the education staff associate (ESA) certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79A-140(5). ESA certification includes: school speech pathologists or audiologists, school counselors, school nurses, school occupational therapists, school physical therapists, school psychologists, and school social workers. Certificated Support Personnel

50. Paragraph 2 Certificated support personnel are considered non-classroom teachers for purposes of the Professional Growth and Evaluation System and are not subject to the four-level rating system. The superintendent will establish a revised evaluation process using the minimum criteria for certificated support personnel developed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction: Knowledge and scholarship in a specialized field, Specialized skills, Management of special and technical environment, The support person as a professional, and Involvement in assisting students, parents and educational personnel. Certificated Support Personnel

51. Criteria for evaluating classified staff will be based upon the job description of the specific assignment. Classified Staff

52. Questions and Answers

53. Thank you for attending! Look for a recording of this event and additional TPEP resources on our website available soon. www.wssda.org