teacher & principal evaluation washington state

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_TPEP

Teacher & Principal EvaluationWashington State

TPEP K-20April 21st, 2011

http://tpep-wa.org/

http://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

http://tpep-wa.org/




May Meeting ScheduleThursday, May 12

N. Thurston 1:00pm – 3:00pm Aspire Middle School

Monday, May 16 N. Mason 2:00pm – 4:00pm

Tuesday, May 17 Anacortes 10:00am – 12:00pm Snohomish 1:30pm – 3:30pm

Wednesday, May 18 Othello 10:00am – 12:00pm Kennewick 2:00pm – 4:00pm

Thursday, May 19 Wenatchee 1:00 – 3:00pm

Friday, May 20 C. Valley 10:00am – 12:00pm Consortium 1:00pm – 3:00pm ESD 101

http://tpep-wa.org/




May TPEP Visits

• 1. Before the May meetings, please have the Evaluation Model Workbook completed and emailed back to OSPI by May 9th for our TPEP Steering Committee meeting on May 10th.

• 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 23-28th, 2011.

http://tpep-wa.org/




TPEP Evaluation Model Workbook

Table of Contents

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

TPEP Teacher Model Template Diagram .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

New Teacher Evaluation Criteria...................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Criteria Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Rubrics ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Measures & Evidence ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

System for Determining Final Summative Teacher Rating .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Tools and Forms to Support Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

{Community & Stakeholder Engagement} ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

Final Summative Evaluations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Note: This is for the teacher workbook; we are working with AWSP on the principal workbook.

http://tpep-wa.org/




DR. LAURA GOE,PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR RESEARCH & DISSEMINATION, NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CENTER FOR TEACHER QUALITY

Overview of Summative Evaluation

http://tpep-wa.org/




“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.”

http://tpep-wa.org/




Evidence

What do We Use as Evidence to Measure Teacher Effectiveness?

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.

Reliable but Not Valid Neither Reliable or Valid Valid but not Reliable Reliable and Valid

Reliable but Not Valid Neither Reliable or Valid Valid but not Reliable Reliable and Valid

Criteria 1Unsatisfactory

2Basic

3Proficient

4Distinguished

Criterion 1

Criterion 2

Criterion 3

Criterion 4

Criterion 5

Criterion 6

Criterion 7

Criterion 8Final Summative

Evaluation1

Unsatisfactory2

Basic3

Proficient4

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

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.



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)



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

http://tpep-wa.org/


Provisional Status (1-3 Years)

Level 1 ratings on any of the 8 criteria will be unsatisfactory and subject to dismissal) Not making progress toward a level 3 (possible unsatisfactory - subject to dismissal) Not achieving level 3 status by end of provisional status – Unsatisfactory subject to dismissal

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Unsatisfactory

Unsat at end of Prov. status

Continuing Contract Status and PGO An overall rating of level 3 to maintain continuing contract An overall rating of level 1 or 2 is unsatisfactory and triggers assistance and possible dismissal (What about one criteria in level 1?)


Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Continuing Contract Status (New Assignment) Same as provisional status for one year


Unsatisfactory

Continuing Contract Status Transition Year 2012-13 School Year Same as provisional status for one year


Unsatisfactory



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

http://tpep-wa.org/


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

1 2 3 4



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

http://tpep-wa.org/




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

UndevelopedEmerging Proficient Distinguished

1 2 3 4 Score1.1 Expectations for learning and achievement:

X 4

1.2 Conveying Rigorous Expectations: X 21.3 Results Driven: X 11.4 Learning activities: X 21.5 Value, sequence, and alignment:

X 4

CRITERION No. 1 – Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement.

2.6Score

Criteria 1 2 3 4 Score?

High Expectations 2.6Effective teaching practices 1Individual Student Needs 4Focus on content and curriculum 2Safe Positive Learning environment

1Student data to modify instruction & improve learning

2Communicate with parents and school community

4Collaborative and collegial practices to improve student learning

4

Score? ? ? ? ? 2.625

3

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??

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

1 2 3 4



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

http://tpep-wa.org/


Criteria Observations Artifacts Impact on Student Learning

Self Assessment

Score

Criterion 1 2Criterion 2 2Criterion 3 2Criterion 4 3Criterion 5 2Criterion 6 3Criterion 7 4Criterion 8 3

1 2 3 48-12 13-20 21-28 29-36

Evidence

Raw Score Range

Raw Score Model

Criteria Observations Artifacts Impact on Student Learning

Self Assessment

Score

Criterion 1 2Criterion 2 2Criterion 3 2Criterion 4 3Criterion 5 2Criterion 6 3Criterion 7 4Criterion 8 3

1 2 3 48-12 13-20 21-28 29-36

Evidence

Raw Score Range

Raw Score/Conditions Hybrid Model

• Must be proficient by 5th 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



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

http://tpep-wa.org/


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?

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?)

Legislative Update• TPEP Executive and Legislative Budget ProposalsGovernor• 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.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.aspSenate• 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.

teacher & principal evaluation washington state

Documents

safety criterion

student achievement

public instructionvisit

student learning15

student learning4score

blog resource site

evaluation process

total score