washington state teacher and principal evaluation

Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation

RIG II PSESD

October 31st, 2012

Jim KovalMichaela Miller

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

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”

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Background: E2SSB 6696

How did we get here?Washington took a problem and approached it by:• Staying true to our

values• Working collaboratively• Relying on research and

practitioners

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

Why does this matter for our students?

Change in Workplace Skill Demand in the United States: 1969 - 1999

Skill Category ChangeComplex 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)

BackgroundTeacher and Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP)

AnacortesCentral ValleyKennewickNorth ThurstonNorth MasonOthelloSnohomish Wenatchee

ESD 101 ConsortiumAlmiraDavenportLibertyMedical LakePullmanReardan-EdwallWellpinitWilbur

Steering Committee

Influences on TPEP Development

2012 2012-

ESSB 5895ESEA

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

Evaluation ComponentsEvaluation Component 5895 Criteria (RCW) Stays the sameCriteria Definitions Stays the sameInstructional/Leadership Frameworks

3 “Preferred” FrameworksOSPI –September 1, 2012

4-Tiered System UnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished

Final Summative Scoring Methodology

OSPI –December 1, 2012Rulemaking has started as of August 21st, 2012

Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory Delineation

Years 1-5 between 1 and 2Years 5 + between 2 and 3 (2 years in a row or 2 out of 3 years)

Measures and Evidence Observation* and Student Growth*(*Required in RCW)Artifacts and other Evidence related to Framework Rubrics

INSTRUCTIONAL AND LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORKS

Teacher and Principal Evaluation Criteria

Changes in Teacher & Principal Evaluation CriteriaCurrent Teacher Evaluation Criteria New Teacher Evaluation Criteria

1. Instructional skill2. Classroom management3. Professional preparation and scholarship4. Effort toward improvement when needed5. Handling of student discipline and

attendant problems6. Interest in teaching pupils7. Knowledge of subject matter

1. Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement2. Demonstrating effective teaching practices3. Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to

address those needs4. Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum5. Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment6. Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student

learning7. Communicating with parents and school community8. Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focus on improving instructional

practice and student learning

Current Principal Evaluation Criteria New Principal Evaluation Criteria1. Knowledge of, experience in and training

in recognizing good professional performance, capabilities and development

2. School administration and management3. School finance4. Professional preparation and scholarship5. Effort toward improvement when needed6. Interest in pupils, employees, patrons

and subjects taught in school7. 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 safety3. 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 learning8. Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap

TPEP Criteria Themes

CLASSROOM TEACHER & PRINCIPALCOMPREHENSIVE & FOCUSED EVALUATIONS

Definitions…

“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.

Classroom Teacher

Classroom Teachers

Includes: Content AreaSpecial Education Music PEArt

May Include:Teacher-Librarians

Instructional Coaches

Non-Classroom Teachers

ESASchool

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

Comprehensive EvaluationTeachers

• 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.

“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.

Comprehensive EvaluationPrincipals

• 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))

Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

Criteria 2

Standards

Criteria 1

Criteria 3

Criteria 4

Criteria 5

Criteria 6

Criteria 7

Criteria 8

Evidence

Frameworks+

Student Growth Rubrics

ObservationArtifactsOther evidence relevant to the frameworks

Summative Rating

State determined process

DistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactory

Criterion Rating

Districtdetermined process


Focused EvaluationCertificated 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 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.

Standards

Criteria 1

Criteria 3

Criteria 4

Criteria 5

Criteria 6

Criteria 7

Criteria 8

Evidence

Framework Component

s +


(3, 6, 8 use their SG rubrics

All others use Criterion 6 SG

rubrics)


Student Growth Measures

Criterion = Summative

Rating


Criteria 2One Criterion is chosen and approved by

evaluator

Focused Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

Focused EvaluationPrincipals 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.

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.

• ESSB 5895 requires provisional or probationary teachers, and principals with fewer than 3 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 and be fully implemented by 2016

SUMMATIVE SCORING METHODOLOGYSTUDENT GROWTH MEASURES

ESSB 5895 & ESEA Waiver

Summative Rating Pilot Findings• TPEP Pilot Sites explored 6 different methods

for achieving a summative 4-level rating for both teachers and principals.

• The 9 sites settled on 3 different methods for use in the 2011-12 pilot year:

Qualitative/Holistic (3)

Raw Score/Conditions (4)

Proficiency Progression/ Raw Score/Conditions (1)

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

The RAW Score ModelTeaching Criteria* Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubrics

Overall Criterion Scores

Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement 3Criterion 2: Demonstrating effective teaching practices 4*Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs 3Criterion 4: Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum 2Criterion 5: Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment 3*Criterion 6: Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning 2Criterion 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 Score 22

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.

8-14 15-21 22-28 29-32

1Unsatisfactory

2Basic

3Proficient

4Distinguished


Criteria 2

Standards

Criteria 1

Criteria 3

Criteria 4

Criteria 5

Criteria 6

Criteria 7

Criteria 8

Evidence

Frameworks+




(From 3 specific criteria)

Summative Rating



Student Growth Impact Ratings:Low, Average, High

Criterion Rating



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.

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.

It is student growth, not student achievement, that is relevant in demonstrating impacts teacher and principals

have on students.

Formal Tests in

Core Subjects

OnlyKnowledge and Learning

that can be Measured

All Classroom Learning

State-based

Tools

District and School-Based

Tools

Classro

om-

based Tools


• 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

Student Growth Teacher Rubric LanguageStudent Growth Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs.

Student Growth 3.1: Establish Student Growth Goal(s)

Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished

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)


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.

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


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

Student Growth Rubric and Rating(Teachers Only)

Student Growth Goal-Setting Score Based on Rubric

Student Growth* Score Based on Rubric

Overall Student Growth Criterion Score

Criterion 3 3 2** 5

Criterion 6 2 2** 4

Criterion 8 2 N/A 2

Student Growth Score 7 4 11

*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

5-12 13-17 18-20Low Average High

Criteria 2

Standards

Criteria 1

Criteria 3

Criteria 4

Criteria 5

Criteria 6

Criteria 7

Criteria 8

Evidence

Frameworks+




(From 3 specific criteria)

Summative Rating



Student Growth Impact Ratings:Low, Average, High

Criterion Rating




Summative Rating & Impact on Student Learning Matrix

Sum

mati

ve R

ating

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

Low Average High

Impact on Student Learning

Growth Plan 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 completed 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;

• Conduct two thirty-minute observations; • 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.

RATER AGREEMENTPrincipal and Administrator Training

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.”

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.

Stages of Rater Agreement2-3 Day

Foundational

Training

Ongoing Rater

Agreement Training

EVAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSupport and Resources

BackgroundeVAL 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.

How does our district get started with eVAL?

• Districts must do 4 things: • 1. Contact OSPI to notify Michaela

([email protected]) of their framework choices*

• 2. Setup staff roles in EDS (see directions on our TPEP/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

http://tpep-wa.org/resources/eval/

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

Follow Us

http://www.tpep-wa.org

Follow us @waOSPI_TPEP

Search for “TPEP” in the iTunes Store for our videos

washington state teacher and principal evaluation

Documents