Evidence: First…

2. Evidence: First… • 1. Assemble your district team to include teachers, administrators, association representatives • 2. Research and select an instructional framework. • 3. Professional development to understand framework & the alignment to each state criteria • 4. Development of evaluation process, tools, forms (followed by process training)

3. NTPS Evidence Menu • District TPEP Team: Work Sessions • Goals: • Menu of Possibilities: Not a checklist, Not a Prescription, Enough to stimulate planning • Format: Organize by state criteria with assigned framework components. • Use framework proficiency levels to determine quality of evidence

4. NTPS Evidence Menu Sample • State Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement • Operational Definition-EXPECTATIONS: The teacher communicates high expectations for student learning • Component 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning • Component 3a: Communicating with Students • Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning • Evidence may include but is not limited to: •  Classroom Observation (part of evaluation cycle) 2b, 3a, 3c •  Lesson Plans 2b, 3c •  Unit Plans 2b, 3c •  Student Work Samples 2b, 3a, 3c •  Student Recognition and Rewards 2b, 3a, 3c •  Student / Parent Feedback 2b, 3a

5. NTPS Crosswalk Document(Evidence informs analysis)

6. NTPS Evidence Menu Sample • State Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning • Operational Definition-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE: The teacher participates collaboratively in the educational community to improve instruction, advance the knowledge and practice of teaching as a profession, and ultimately impact student learning • Component 4d: Participating in a Professional Community • Component 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally • Component 4f: Showing Professionalism • Evidence may include but is not limited to: •  Self Assessment of Practice (part of evaluation cycle) 4d, 4e, 4f •  Collaborative Goal Setting (part of evaluation cycle) 4d, 4e, 4f •  Reflection Conference (part of evaluation cycle) 4d, 4e, 4f •  Non-classroom Observation 4d, 4f •  Reflective Journal 4d, 4e, 4f •  School / District Committee Artifacts 4d, 4e, 4f •  School / District Leadership 4d, 4e, 4f •  Clock Hours / Credits / Transcripts 4e •  Peer Feedback 4d, 4e, 4f •  Professional Awards and Recognition 4d, 4e, 4f

7. NTPS Crosswalk Document(Evidence informs analysis)

8. NTPS Evaluation Cycle

9. Teacher Self-Assessment • Review Instructional Framework (Enhancing Professional Practice: a Framework for Teaching) • Review prior year evaluation feedback • (Preparation for first planning conference with evaluator)

10. First Observation Cycle • Planning Conference • Formal Classroom Observation • Reflection Conference • Includes Goal Setting Discussion

11. Second Observation Cycle • Planning Conference • Formal Classroom Observation • Reflection Conference • Preparation for Pre-Summative Conference: Evidence Discussion

12. Second Observation Cycle • Planning Conference • Formal Classroom Observation • Reflection Conference

13. Summative Scoring Process • Teacher Self Assessment & Reflection • Pre-Summative Conference Preparation • Pre-Summative Conference • Final Summative Conference (optional)

14. Sample Observation Cycle Evidence • See separate packet. • Thank you: • Monica Sweet, Aspire Middle School Principal

15. NTPS Summative Evaluation Standards • Must score each of the eight (8) state criteria • Must have evidence in at least two components for each criteria (Exception: Criteria #7 = Only one component - 4c) • For any criteria rated “1” (unsatisfactory) or “2” (basic), evaluator must provide evidence-based narrative explanation on summary evaluation form. • Final holistic summative score determined by evaluator using scores for eight criteria and summative rubric. • No Surprises - Process designed to reveal all strengths and growth areas prior to final summative evaluation.

16. Sample Plan – Per TeacherMarch through April • Staff Meeting – 1 hour (All) • Reflection Conference + Menu: 1 Hour • Prep for Pre-Summative: 30-60 Min. • Goals Rev./Pre-Summative Conf.: 1 hour • Prep final evaluation document: 45 Min. • Summative Conf.: (Optional) 30 Min. • Total: 4-5 hrs per teacher + staff mtg.

17. Pre-Summative Conference • Before The Conference… • Teacher & Evaluator: • Considers component evidence which may be used to inform the summative evaluation. • Reflects on strengths and areas for further growth • Uses framework , crosswalk document, and summative evaluation form to score each of the eight criteria along with a single summative score. • “More” evidence is not necessarily “better”. Refer to framework in deciding what to bring to the conference.

18. Pre-Summative Conference • Conference Agenda: • Compare/discuss preliminary criteria scores and summative score prepared by teacher and evaluator along with related evidence • For any differences in preliminary scores, component evidence is reviewed to seek mutual agreement. (If no agreement can be reached, teacher may submit new evidence for evaluator consideration.) • Identify any new evidence necessary to complete evaluation and determine who will gather/provide this. • Review Summative Evaluation Document Plan & Optional Final Conference

19. EvaluationSummative Scoring Process Criterion Rating Summative Rating Standards Evidence Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Criteria 1 State determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Frameworks + Student Growth Rubrics Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Criteria 7 Criteria 8

20. Summative Rating ProcessOverview • Summative Rating is determined through a “Raw Score” Model • Determination of overall criterion score based on both: • Instructional framework rubrics • Student growth rubrics

21. 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.

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

23. ESSB 5895 Establishes New Definitions Around Student Growth Measures Both E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895 contain language around student growth including: Changes… 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. 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.

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

25. 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

26. Student Growth Rubric and Rating(Teachers Only) • *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

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

28. Summative Rating & Impact on Student Learning Matrix

29. NTPS Game Plan for Student Growth • Gather representative team • Identify teaching assignment categories at elementary and secondary • List appropriate student growth measures for each assignment • Obtain or develop student growth measures as needed for specialized assignments • Develop training tools, sample goals, and other resources for teachers and principals • Development This Year; Implement FALL 2013.

30. NTPS Lessons Learned • Quality, NOT Quantity • Collect, discuss, and record all year • Maximize conference discussions for teacher and principal • Create evidence plan WITH each teacher – Should NOT be prescribed without teacher input.

31. QUESTIONS?