Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation

1. Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation RIG II PSESD October 31st, 2012 Jim Koval Michaela Miller

2. 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 • eVALManagement System

3. TPEP Core Principles “We Can’t Fire Our Way to Finland” • 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.”

4. System Overview

5. 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

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. Why does this matter for our students? “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)

8. BackgroundTeacher and Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP) Anacortes Central Valley Kennewick North Thurston North Mason Othello Snohomish Wenatchee ESD 101 Consortium Almira Davenport Liberty Medical Lake Pullman Reardan-Edwall Wellpinit Wilbur

9. Steering Committee

10. Influences on TPEP Development

11. Evaluation Components

12. Teacher and Principal Evaluation Criteria Instructional and Leadership Frameworks

13. Changes in Teacher & Principal Evaluation Criteria

15. TPEP Criteria Themes

16. Definitions… Classroom teacher & principalcomprehensive & focused evaluations

17. “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.

18. Classroom Teacher Staff who provide academically-focused instruction to students 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.

19. 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.

20. “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.

21. 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))

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 Criteria 7 Criteria 8

23. 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.

24. Focused Evaluation Summative Scoring Process Standards Criterion = Summative Rating Evidence One Criterion is chosen and approved by evaluator Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Criteria 3 Framework Components + Student Growth Rubrics (3, 6, 8 use their SG rubrics All others use Criterion 6 SG rubrics) Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Student Growth Measures Criteria 7 Criteria 8

25. 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.

26. 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

27. ESSB 5895 & ESEA Waiver Summative scoring methodologystudent growth measures

28. 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:

29. Summative Rating ProcessOverview • 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

30. 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.

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. It is student growth, not student achievement, that is relevant in demonstrating impacts teacher and principals have on students. State-based Tools District and School-Based Tools Classroom-based Tools

35. 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

36. Student Growth Teacher Rubric Language

37. Student Growth Principal Rubric Language

38. 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

39. Evaluation Summative 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

40. Summative Rating & Impact on Student Learning Matrix

41. 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.

42. Principal and Administrator Training Rater Agreement

43. 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.”

44. 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.

45. Stages of Rater Agreement 2-3 Day Foundational Training Ongoing Rater Agreement Training

46. Support and Resources eval management system

47. 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.

49. How does our district get started with eVAL? • Districts must do 4 things: • 1. Contact OSPI to notify Michaela (michaela.miller@k12.wa.us) of their framework choices* • 2. Setup staff roles in EDS (see directions on our TPEP/eVALhttp://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

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