achievement gap oversight committee aug 3 … and having an executive committee with 2 legislators...
TRANSCRIPT
Achievement Gap Oversight Committee Aug 3
Location: Highline E.R.A.C. Offices (Board Room)
15675 Ambaum Blvd SW Burien, WA 98166.
Oversight Committee website: http://www.k12.wa.us/AchievementGap/default.aspx
Charge for the Committee:
1. Identify, research and Inform: Identify, share and advocate for strategies that work to reduce the achievement
gap, with a cultural competence lens.
2. Examine and recommend: Review and recommend policy and strategies to the State Legislature, OSPI, PESB,
and SBE in the following areas:
Supporting and facilitating parent and community involvement and outreach;
Identifying data elements and systems needed to monitor progress in closing the gap
Enhancing the cultural competency of current and future educators and the cultural relevance of
curriculum and instruction
Expanding pathways and strategies to prepare and recruit diverse teachers and administrators
Recommending current programs and resources that should be redirected to narrow the gap
Making closing the achievement gap part of the school and school district improvement process
Exploring innovative school models that have shown success in closing the achievement gap
Health and wellbeing
Post-secondary education and job training
Early Learning – seamless birth to 20 support continuum
3. Monitor: Follow-up with recommendations made to State Legislature, OSPI, PESB, and SBE by the committee.
Deadlines:
December 2010 – New recommendation to OSPI, SBE, PESB.
January 2011 – Report to Governor’s Office and Legislature
Requested Resources:
Achievement Oversight and Accountability Report and Recommendations
http://www.k12.wa.us/Cisl/pubdocs/AgapLegReport2010.pdf
Education Trust report on the Achievement Gap
http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/NAEP%20Gap_0.pdf
Time Agenda Item Process/Products Staffing
8:30
Pragmatics, networking and coffee
Room set up and networking opportunity Coffee and Tea are provided by Erin Jones
8:45 Meeting Opens Introductions of Committee Members and Key Staff
8:50 Member Briefings
Quick 2 minute reports by committee members regarding conversations with their organizations and communities
9:30 OEO Data Results
Power point presentation of data results from OEO. OEO is writing their final report and would like to inform committee members of collected data.
9:40 Civil Rights Legislation
House Bill 3026
9:55 Committee Updates
Review of: AGOAC legislation
10:20 Break
10:30 Governance Structure and by-laws
Open public meetings Public notification Quorum Designees/voting Open for comment
11:00 Work plan Work plan for AGOAC QEC feedback
12:00 Lunch Break for lunch Lunch prepared and provided by CISL staff
1:00 Work plan Work plan for AGOAC continued
1:30 Content Briefings
PESB – Adopted cultural competence standards Teacher/Administrator evaluation QEC Parent Involvement Coordinator District and School Improvement – CISL Initiative
3:15 Break
3:30 Debrief/Wrap Up
Agenda items for next meeting
4:00 Schedule Future Meetings/Schedule
4:30 Meeting Close
1
Achievement Gap Oversight and Accountability Committee DRAFT Notes:
August 3, 2010
8:30-4:30 p.m.
Highline E.R.A.C. Office in the Board Room
Members in Attendance:
Adie Simmons
Assistant Superintendent Erin Jones
Superintendent Randy Dorn
Wanda Brown-Billingsly
Frieda Takamura
Fiasili Savusa
Rep. Sharon Tomiko-Santos
Sen. Curtis King
Rep. Kevin Parker (call in)
Lillian Ortiz-Self (for Ricardo Iniquez)
Members not in Attendance:
Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe
Sen. Claudia Kaufman
Rep. Dave Quall
Bernie Thomas
The meeting was chaired by Sen. Curtis King, as recommended by Rep. Sharon Tomiko-Santos.
Dec, 9, 2009 Minutes- Addressed and Adopted
http://www.k12.wa.us/CISL/Pubdocs/12.09notes.pdf
May 7, 2010 Minutes-Addressed and Adopted
http://www.k12.wa.us/AchievementGap/meetings/Notes5-7-10.pdf
May 19, 2010 Minutes-Addressed and Adopted
http://www.k12.wa.us/AchievementGap/meetings/Notes-5-19-10.pdf
The members began the meeting by giving updates.
Erin Jones has been working with ELL, Highly Capable and Quality Education Council (QEC) Committees.
She has been collaborating with Tonya Middling in School and District Improvement Assistance (DSIA) on
family engagement and ELL strategies
Superintendent Randy Dorn shared that he worked very hard on the Race To The Top (RTTT) application
and was disappointed that Washington wasn’t selected.
Adie Simmons has been working with the Quality Education Council (QEC) on the family engagement
coordinator description. She is hosting focus groups to give input on the position and the QEC model.
Wanda Brown-Billingsly shared the work of the Committee with Dr. Paul Ruiz from the Education Trust
at the Black Education Roundtable. She also shared that Seattle Public Schools is working on a pilot
program with the Response to Intervention model.
Fiasili Savusa utilized the work from the Committee in the grant application for the Promise
Neighborhoods grant for White Center.
2
Lillian Ortiz-Self is the interim representative from the Commission on Hispanic Affairs until another
representative is found. She has been working on the data regarding graduation rates as represented
on school district websites and would like for the data to be more accurate and longitudinal so you can
track cohorts of students.
Frieda Takamura attended the Data Governance Committee meeting as the interim representative from
the Committee. She reported that the Commission on Asian and Pacific American Affairs is working on a
civic engagement project.
Rep. Santos has been working with Mea Moore from the Professional Educator’s Standards Board (PESB)
on improving WA Teachers Project, which engages high-risk students in exploring the teaching
profession. She is concerned with students who have exited formal education and are being provided
educational services by community based organizations, rather than receiving basic education.
Rep. Parker (on the phone)- no comments, but appreciated Rep. Santos comments and the Race To The
Top (RTTT) process.
Sen. King shared about a Junior Achievement facility in Yakima that provides assistance to minority
students and families.
Office of the Education Ombudsman Presentation
Presenter: Adie Simmons, Director
Presentation: http://www.k12.wa.us/AchievementGap/meetings/Aug2010/OEO8-03-10.pdf
Discussion Notes:
The Committee discussed the geographic breakdown of the OEO case data. Other issues discussed were
the online school programs used as alternative programs for students, the process for formal discipline
hearings, free and reduced lunch qualifications and processes.
Civil Rights Legislation- House Bill 3026- Superintendent Randy Dorn, Rep. Santos and CeCe Clinch
(Counsel to House Education Committee)
When House Bill 3026 was proposed, concerns were raised around the term “enforcement” and its
meaning as it would pertain to the Office of Equity and Civil Rights within the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction. The intention was to give the other protected classes the same
level of protection as gender equity. Superintendent Dorn and Rep. Santos discussed the bill and had
the same concept of creating the same protections as already in place with gender equity under Title IV.
Discussion Notes:
The clarification of the process for filing a complaint was discussed, including the consequences for a
school district if it is found in non-compliance. Each school district that receives federal funding has to
have non-discrimination policies and procedures and sign assurances to OSPI and U.S. Department of
Education that it is compliance with civil rights laws. OSPI’s role is to determine if the school district has
a policy, and procedures to support the policy (technical assistance) and monitoring of compliance. The
3
options of filing a complaint with the Office of the Equity and Civil Rights within OSPI and with the
federal Office of Civil rights can be confusing to parents and students. There are multiple doors to the
same outcome for complaint resolution, with the Office of Civil Rights having a different, more legal
approach.
New Tasks for the Committee
Presenter: Rudi Bertschi
Presentation:
http://www.k12.wa.us/AchievementGap/meetings/Aug2010/NewTasks810Committee.pdf
There are multiple sub-committees within the Building Bridges workgroup, list will be provided by Erin
Jones.
Representative Santos moved that the Building Bridges workgroup provide opportunities for the Ethnic
Commissions to be engaged in the workgroup. Motion seconded, motion passes.
The Committee discussed representation on other committees and work groups:
Representatives to the Quality Education Council workgroup- Adie Simmons, alternate is Sally
Brownfield
Representative to the Building Bridges workgroup- Sen. Curtis King
Representative to the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) workgroup- Rep.
Sharon Tomiko-Santos.
Representative Santos moved that the STEM workgroup provide opportunities for the Ethnic
Commissions to be engaged in the workgroup. Motion seconded, motion passes.
Decision Making Model and Meeting Protocols
The Committee originally chose to operate by consensus and to be facilitated by John-Paul Chaisson-
Cardenas. The Committee discussed making changes to the decision-making model and the way
meetings are run. Several options were discussed as possibilities, including a Chair/Co-Chair model,
hiring an outside facilitator, having bi-partisan, bi-cameral chairs from the legislative education
committee and having an executive committee with 2 legislators and 1 representative from the ethnic
commissions.
Sen. King asked if there was consensus in not having an outside facilitator, and it was agreed that there
would not be an outside facilitator, due to concerns about funding.
Consensus was reached on creating a 3 person executive committee (bipartisan leadership) with 2 chairs
and 1 member from the community (Ethnic Commissions).
The members of the executive committee will be discussed at the next meeting.
Consensus was reached that the Committee will allow enough time for discussion of issues and will take
votes, recording the number of votes for each position. Minority reports will be allowed.
4
Work Plan for the Achievement Gap Oversight and Accountability Committee
The work plan for the Committee was discussed and it was determined that CISL staff would create a
status report of recommendations issued by the Committee and the progress made on the items. The
status report will be discussed at the next meeting.
Open Public Meetings Act
Presenter: Rudi Bertschi, Center for the Improvement of Student Learning (CISL), OSPI
Rudi review the Open Pubic Meetings Act, reminding the Committee that they are liable, and to be
careful not to have accidental meetings. Committee members are to review the act and ask any
questions or concerns.
Quorum has not been established for the Committee and there are no written by-laws for the
Committee yet.
Rep. Santos recommended that the Committee executive Committee work with the Office of the
Attorney General to review the Open Public Meetings Act.
Quality Education Council (QEC) Parent Involvement Coordinator
Presenter: Shawn Lewis, OSPI
Shawn Lewis reminded the Committee that December 1, 2010 is the deadline to recommend funding
allocations to close the achievement gap and improve graduation rates to the Quality Education Council
(QEC).
Added to the essential classified staffing in the model is the position of parent involvement coordinator.
After the new funding formula is developed by the QEC, it will go into effect next year. It identifies 4
prototypical school sizes and identifies how many teachers, counselors, classified and certificated staff
would be assigned to each prototypical school and school district.
Recommendations from the QEC will be shared with the Committee.
Committee Budget Overview
Presenter: Shawn Lewis, OSPI
The Committee has been appropriated $100,000 per fiscal year, will have a budget reduction if directed
by Governor Gregoire. There are currently restrictions on contracting and travel, which require 6-8
weeks for the Office of Financial Management (OFM) to review and approve exemptions to the
restrictions.
Administrative costs in the past have been paid out of the Center for the Improvement of Student
Learning (CISL) budget. Committee will need to factor in the administrative costs of convening and
providing support for meetings.
Budget will be provided in the next meeting.
5
Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) update
Presenter: Mea Moore
Presentation: http://www.k12.wa.us/AchievementGap/meetings/Aug2010/PESB8-3-10.pdf
Discussion Notes:
The Committee discussed the need to incorporate cultural competency standards beyond pre-service
and pro-cert teachers, but to have it be a continuum for teachers in different stages of their careers.
Partnering with higher education institutions (Colleges of Education) was discussed, to better prepare
teachers on cultural competence. Cultural competency standards for principals and superintendents
have not been addressed yet.
Principal and Teacher Evaluation Pilot Presentation
Presenter: Erin Jones, OSPI
Presentation: http://www.k12.wa.us/AchievementGap/meetings/Aug2010/TeacherPrincipalEval8-3-
10.pdf
Discussion Notes:
The Committee discussed how to evaluate and rate teachers fairly and equitably, including utilizing
summative and formative assessments throughout the academic year. Utilizing student assessment
data for evaluation was discussed, as well as performance pay for student achievement. Teachers are
currently compensated based on their educational qualifications and years of teaching experiences.
The Committee requested that more information on the Principal and Teacher Evaluation Pilot be
presented at the next meeting.
Next Steps:
The Committee requested that the following items be addressed in the next meeting:
Status Report of Committee recommendations- CISL/OSPI staff
Committee Budget-Shawn Lewis, OSPI
Revisit discussion and identification of executive Committee
Develop a work plan based on the status report
Presentation on Principal and Teacher Evaluation Pilot program
Office of the Education Ombudsman
2009 – 2010 Report
www.waparentslearn.org
1-866-297-2597
87
317
473
844
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010
Number of OEO Cases per Fiscal Year
OEO handled 844 requests for services in 2009-2010. 759 were full
interventions and 85 were consultations from educators, family members,
community professionals.
OEO will function with an annual budget of $586,000 in the 2010-2011
fiscal year.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Who referred callers to OEO?
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Number of Calls to OEO Per Month 2009-2010
Legal Guardian/Parent
Legal Guardian/Other Relative
Foster Parent
Student
Community Professional
Educator
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Caller's Relationship to the Student
Who contacted OEO?The vast majority of contacts
were made by phone by the
parent or relative of a student.
6%7%
7%
78%
2%
Contacts to OEO
FAX Mail Ombudsman Clinics Phone Walk-In
0
20
40
60
80
100
Student Grade level Count by Grade
320
1
438
Gender Female Female To Male
Male
Student Gender Breakdown
Students Served
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Aft
er
Sch
oo
l …
Alt
ern
ati
ve …
Att
en
dan
ce
Bilin
gu
al
Bu
llyin
g
Dis
cip
lin
e
Dis
cri
min
ati
on
En
rollm
en
t
Fam
ily …
Hig
h S
ch
oo
l …
Hig
hly
Cap
ab
le
Ho
me S
ch
oo
lin
g
Info
rmati
on
…
Mu
ltip
le Issu
es
Sch
oo
l R
eco
rds
Sch
oo
l S
afe
ty
Sp
ecia
l E
du
cati
on
Tit
le 1
Tru
an
cy
Tu
tori
ng
WA
SL
Nu
mb
er
of
Cases
Comparison of number of cases by issue: 08-09 and 07-08 Fiscal Years
08-09 Fiscal Year
07-08 Fiscal Year
18 11 1042
154
4
87
13
53
20 8 425 19 10 19 14
227
5 4 1 10
Number of cases by issue Fiscal Year 2009-2010
Primary
Issues
Issues within Special Education cases
Special Education cases are complex and interventions can be lengthy. Besides
the student’s disability and the primary issue, there may be a host of other
contributing issues. Examples:
Primary Issue
Transportation
School placement
Safety
Academic progress
Suspension/Expulsion
Accommodations
Student Disability
Autism
Asperger
Bipolar Disorder
PTSD
ADD/ADHD
Dislexia
Hearing impaired
Contributing Issues
Bullying
Discrimination
Parent disability
District’s Non-compliance with federal/state law
Lack of parent access to the school, the classroom, information
Untrained school staff
School culture
Lack of school-parent communication
Parent-school official(s) personality conflict
School districts with the highest number of cases (by primary
issue):
District # of cases Main Primary Issues
Seattle 117 Special Education, Enrollment, Suspension, Expulsion
Wapato 36 Bilingual Program
Yakima 31 Special Education, Enrollment, Bullying
Renton 26 Suspension, Expulsion
Highline 21 School lunches
Tacoma 19 Special Education, Suspension, Expulsion, Bullying
Federal Way 16 Suspension, expulsion, Special Education
Kent 16 Special Education, Suspension, Expulsion, Bullying
Olympia 15 Special Education, Bullying
Northshore 14 Special Education, Bullying
In 2009-2010 OEO worked with:
144 School Districts
130 Superintendents
289 District Administrators
720 Principals
887 Parents
Case Results
Ombudsmen Rate of Success
Enrollment Cases
Student allowed to enroll in school……………………………………..92%
Suspension/Expulsion Cases
Student readmitted to school followed suspension…………………….. 89%
Student expulsion was lifted………………………………………………. 72%
Student back on track to graduate………………………………………..80%
Academic Progress Cases
Student provided alternative learning opportunities……………………..98%
Student able to participate in extra-curricular program………………….98%
Student able to participate in desired or needed class………………….96%
Student allowed to graduate……………………………………………….60%
Bullying/Harassment Cases
Student safety was improved…………………………………………….. 95%
Victim allowed to transfer to another school………………………………78%
Parents/School Officials
School District changed position and considered new options for resolution………………….….89%
Parent changed position and considered new options for resolution………………………………94%
Parent dropped legal options against the district while working with the Ombudsman…………...85%
Parents and school officials learned to communicate better with each other………………………99%
Support for Educators and Parents
OEO staff conducted:
• Professional development for schools and school districts on
topics related to: Cultural Competence, Preventing and Resolving
Conflict, Family Involvement in Education.
• Institutes for parents and family members to learn how to better
understand the public school system and advocate for their
children.
• Ombudsman Clinics to educate and inform diverse parents.
• Conflict Prevention and Resolution classes for the
Principal Preparation program at Seattle University.
OEO is Examining Processes
On-line schools – A number of on-line schools exist in WA State hosted by school
districts such as Marysville, Okanogan, Steilacoom/Monroe/Omak (WAVA). These schools
are tuition free. Contractors manage the schools and Instruction is delivered by certificated
teachers. Currently there are over 14,000 students enrolled from all over the state. When
problems arise --which policies apply to students? Their home district policies? The on-line
school policies? The host district policies?
Timing of HSPE and Parent notification - Students not able to attend graduation
ceremony if they have not passed 1 component of the High School Proficiency Exam
(HSPE). Reading, Math, Writing, Science testing is in March/April. Students find out results
in May, graduation ceremonies are in early/mi-June. Re-takes in August. Parents not
aware of timing or process.
Language access for high-stake situations – Lack of professional interpretation for
families of ELL student involved in situations that impact student academic success.
Expulsions/ Suspensions- Fair appeal processes that include close and timely
collaboration with parents, uniform guidelines for emergency expulsions, educational
opportunities for expelled students.
Supporting Materials
• The PESB is making a conscious effort to conserve
resources. All materials related to the work of the
Cultural Competency Work Group (SB 5973),
including this PowerPoint are available electronically
by visiting the PESB website www.pesb.wa.gov .
• Under “What’s New” Click on Cultural Competency.
• The Power Point is listed as AGOAC Presentation
8/3/10
Legislative Charge
• SB 5973 – Identify a list of model standards for
Cultural Competency… make recommendations on
the strengths and weaknesses of those standards.
• HB 2261 – Incorporate standards for Cultural
Competency along Washington’s continuum of
teacher preparation, induction and career-long
professional development.
Work Group MembersIdalia M. Apodaca - WEA representative
Cherry Banks - WACTE representative
Susanne Beauchaine - Equity and Civil Rights, OSPI
John-Paul Chaisson-Cardenas - Equity and Civil Rights, OSPI
Robert Harkins - Deputy Superintendent, OSPI
Erin Jones - Center for Student Improvement, OSPI
Karen Johnson - AWSP representative
Mindy Meyers - Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession
Mea Moore - PESB
Heidi Schillinger - ReachOut for New Futures
Jim Smith - City University
Adie Simmons - Achievement Gap Oversight and Accountability
Committee representative, Office of the Education Ombudsman
Steve Zuber - Office of the Education Ombudsman
Work Group Methods
• Review national and state model standards related
to cultural competence
• Recommend model standards aligned with
Washington’s continuum of teacher preparation,
induction and career long professional development
• Rate model standards for their strengths and
weaknesses
Results
Note: All documents related to the Cultural Competency
Work Group Reports and Recommendations are available
on the PESB website: www.pesb.wa.gov
The Cultural Competency Work Group completed the following:
Survey of state and National models and standards;
Comprehensive review of research and literature related to standards for Cultural Competence;
Model standards identified and rated;
Identified main components of Cultural Competence as they relate to the continuum of teacher preparation;
Results, continued
Provided Achievement Gap Oversight and Accountability Committee with progress updates
Provided progress updates to PESB and Education Committees of the Legislature;
Provided PESB with final recommendations as part of HB 2261 Report to the legislature (January 7, 2009);
Incorporated recommendations with Calibrated Standards for PESB adoption at July 21, 2010 PESB meeting.
Model Standard Components
Component 1.0- Professional Ethics within a Global
and Multicultural Society
• 1.1 Human Rights
• 1.2 Social Justice
Component 2.0- Civil Rights and Non Discrimination
Law
• 2.1Civil Rights Law
• 2.2 Safe Schools
Model Standard Components, continued
Component 3.0 -Reflective Practice, Self Awareness and
Anti Bias
• 3.1 Societal Advantages
• 3.1.a Cosmology, Spirituality, Creed and Religion
• 3.2 Understanding Culture and Identity
Component 4.0 - Repertoires of Practice for Teaching
Effectiveness for Culturally Diverse Populations
• 4.1 Culturally Responsive School/Classroom
• 4.1.a Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment: Equity
Pedagogy
• 4.1.b Language
• 4.1.c Funds of Knowledge
• 4.2 Partnerships with Families and Communities
Slide 1Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionTeacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
AGOAC BriefingTeacher/Principal Evaluation
August 3rd, 2010
Slide 2Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Teacher/Principal Evaluation
Slide 3Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionTeacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
The Wisdom of Practice
“After 30 years of doing such work, I have concluded that classroom teaching…is perhaps the most complex, most challenging, and most demanding, subtle, nuanced, and frightening activity that our species has ever invented…The only time a physician could possibly encounter a situation of comparable complexity would be in the emergency room of a hospital during or after a natural disaster.”
– Lee Shulman
Stanford University
Slide 4Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionTeacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Focus on What Matters
• America’s central educational challenge is to dramatically improve student performance.
• Teachers drive student performance; therefore, we need a systemic approach to ensure the most effective teacher in every classroom.
Slide 5Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionTeacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
5
Why Measure Teacher Effectiveness?
• There are many valid reasons, both formative and summative, to measure teacher effectiveness
• But the ultimate goal of all measurement of teacher effectiveness should be…
to improve teaching and learning
• An evaluation system should be designed to improve teaching, not “rate” or “rank” teachers
Slide 6Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionTeacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
A Holistic and Systematic Approach
Slide 7Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
WASHINGTON STATE
Teacher/Principal Evaluation
Slide 8Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionTeacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Parts of 6696
• Part 1 – Accountability
• Part 2 – Teacher and Principal Evaluation• Part 3 – Seattle principal tenure provision
• Part 4 – Preparation Programs
• Part 5 – Requires public colleges to offer alternative routes
• Part 6 – Requires teacher prep programs to administer assessment to pre-service candidates
• Part 7 – Authorizes OSPI to provisionally adopt Common Core Standards
Slide 9Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionTeacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Background and Rationale
Pilot was created in E2SSB 6696 – Race to the Top legislation• Requires OSPI, in collaboration with teachers, principals, administrators
and parents, to improve principal and teacher evaluation systems Creates new evaluation criteria for both classroom teachers and
principals Requires a four-level rating system Requires OSPI to create a pilot with school districts in the 2010-11
and 2011-12 school year Requires all districts to adopt new systems in the 2013-14 school
year It also:
▪ Increased the length of the provisional status for new teachers▪ Requires school district to send to OSPI information on the current
evaluation systems for all employee groups
Slide 10Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
2010-11Pilot districts develop “models” to use in implementing the new evaluation standards. These models will likely include indicators, rubrics and protocols.
2011-12The pilot districts will use the new models.End of 2011-12Superintendent Dorn is charged with analyzing the work of the pilots and choosing one or more of the models as his own.
2012-13All districts will do the preparation work needed to use the new models.
2013-14All districts will use the new models as the basis for evaluating their teachers and principals.
Slide 12Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionTeacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
SIGImplement rigorous,
transparent and equitable evaluation systems for teachers and principals which are developed with staff and use student growth as significant factor.
Identify and reward school leaders and teachers who have increased student achievement and graduation rates; identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities to improve professional practice, have not done so.
Implement such strategies as financial incentives and career ladders for recruiting, placing and retaining effective teachers.
E2SSB 6696The four-level rating system used to evaluate the certificated classroom teacher must describe performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded. When student growth data, if available and relevant to the teacher and
subject matter, is referenced in the evaluation process it must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools. As used in this subsection, "student growth" means the change in student achievement between two points in time.
Evaluation Requirements for SIG Schools for Teachers and Leaders
Slide 13Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionTeacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Talk About Teaching Charlotte Danielson
Of all the approaches available to educators to promote teacher learning, the most powerful (and imbedded in virtually all others) is that of professional conversation. Reflective conversations about practice require teachers to understand and analyze events in the classroom. In these conversations, teachers must consider the instructional decisions they have made and examine student learning in light of those decisions.
Slide 15Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Evaluation
conversations
Slide 16Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Creating a Culture
Ensuring School Safety
Planning with Data
Aligning Curriculum
Improving Instruction
Managing Resources
Engaging Communities
Closing the Gap
PRINCIPALEVALUATIONCRITERIA
Slide 17Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Creating a Culture
Ensuring School Safety
Planning with Data
Aligning Curriculum
Improving Instruction
Managing Resources
Engaging Communities
Closing the Gap
PRINCIPALEVALUATIONCRITERIA
Slide 18Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Centering instruction on high
expectations
Demonstrating effective teaching practices
Individualizing instruction
Subject matter knowledge
Fostering a safe, positive learning
environment.
Use student data to modify
instruction
Communicating with parents and
school community.
Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices
TEACHEREVALUATIONCRITERIA
Slide 19Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Centering instruction on high
expectations
Demonstrating effective teaching
practices
Individualizing instruction
Subject matter knowledge
Fostering a safe, positive learning
environment.
Use student data to modify
instruction
Communicating with parents and
school community.
Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices
TEACHEREVALUATIONCRITERIA
Slide 20Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionTeacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
1.Please send along your feedback to Jim or Michaela2. Please sign up for our TPEP listserve: [email protected]. Visit our OSPI website:http://www.k12.wa.us/EdLeg/TPEP/default.aspx
Thank You
Slide 21Teacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionTeacher/Principal Evaluation PilotOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Contact Information
• Dr. Jim KovalTeacher/Principal Evaluation Project Director
OSPI
360. 725.6116
• Michaela MillerTeacher/Principal Evaluation Project Manager
OSPI
360.725.6116