Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update March 2013 Presented by: Alan...

Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update

March 2013

Presented by: Alan Burke, Ed.D.

Deputy Superintendent of K-12 Education

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

Steering Committee

2

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 management

3. 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

3

“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.

Principals or assistant principals who evaluate teachers are subject to the leadership frameworks. 5

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

6

Implementation ScheduleBoth 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 2015-16.

Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory Delineation: Years 1-5 between 1 and 2 Years 5+ between 2 and 3

2 years in a row or 2 out of 3 = probation leading to non-renewal Two consecutive 1 ratings results in discharge

7

Comprehensive EvaluationTeachers

Assesses all 8 evaluation criteria.All criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative

evaluation rating and all are equally weighted.Student Growth Rubrics embedded in Criterion.

(3, 6, 8 for teachers; 3, 5, 8 for principals)All provisional classroom teachers and any classroom

teacher not on level 3 or level 4 receive comprehensive evaluation.

Requires observations:All classroom teachers shall receive a comprehensive summative

evaluation at least once every four years.Minimum of two, totaling 60 minutes3rd year provisional, a minimum of three, totaling 90 minutes 8

Evaluation Summative Scoring ProcessEvidence

Criteria 2

Standards

Criteria 1

Criteria 3

Criteria 4

Criteria 5

Criteria 6

Criteria 7

Criteria 8

Frameworks+

Student Growth Rubrics

ObservationArtifactsOther evidence relevant to the frameworks

Summative

RatingState determined process

DistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactory

Criterion RatingDistrictdetermined process

DistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactory

9

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 3

Criterion 2: Demonstrating effective teaching practices 4*Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs 3

Criterion 4: Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum 2

Criterion 5: Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment 3

*Criterion 6: Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning 2

Criterion 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.

OSPI Approved Summative Scoring Band8-14 15-21 22-28 29-32

1Unsatisfactory

2Basic

3Proficient

4Distinguished

10

Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher

A teacher’s criterion scores are

established using both the

district’s selected instructional

framework and Washington

State student growth rubrics.

The Summative Criteria Score

is the sum of the eight criterion

scores and is determined by the

OSPI-approved scoring band.

The Student Growth Impact

Rating is generated by

combining the five student

growth rubric components from

criteria 3, 6, and 8, and is

determined by the OSPI-

approved scoring band.

Teachers with a “Distinguished”

Summative Criteria Score and a

“Low” Student Growth Impact

Rating cannot be rated higher

than “Proficient.”

A “Low” Student Growth Impact

Rating triggers a student growth

inquiry regardless of Summative

Criteria Score.

Criterion 1: Expectations

= Criterion 1 score

Criterion 2: Instruction

= Criterion 2 score

Criterion 3: Differentiation

= Criterion 3 score

Criterion 4: Content Knowledge

= Criterion 4 score

Criterion 6: Assessment

= Criterion 6 score

Criterion 7: Families and Community

= Criterion 7 score

Final Summative ScoreThe sum of all eight criterion scores

8–14 15–21 22–28 29–32

U B P D*

* A teacher with a summative rating of “D”, and a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating will receive a summative rating of “P”.

Danielson Rubric Components(each scored 1–4)

Student Growth Component

Instructional and Professional Practice Component

Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project

Student Growth Impact RatingThe sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3, 6, and 8

5–12 13–17 18–20

Low* Average High

* A score of “1” in any of the student growth components results in a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating.

Criterion 5: Learning Environment

= Criterion 5 score

+

Evidence

Observable evidence Evidence outside of a classroom observation Authentic artifacts of teaching and learning Student growth goals and outcomes Evidence of professional practice

--------------------------------Each criterion gets a final score that must be

reported as U, B, P, or D(U=1 B=2 P=3 D=4)

Criterion 8: Professional Practice

= Criterion 8 score

11

Focused EvaluationCertificated Classroom Teachers

Includes an assessment of one of the eight criterion.Student Growth Rubrics from one of the three criterion

If the choice is Criterion 3,6, or 8; their accompanying student growth rubrics will be used.

If the choices is Criterion 1,2,4,5,7, the accompanying student growth rubrics from Criterion 3 or 6 will be used.

The selection must be approved by the teacher ‘s evaluator.A focused evaluation must be performed in any year that a

comprehensive evaluation is not scheduled. Requires the same observation protocol as for comprehensive

evaluations.A “basic” focused rating does start the two basic rankings = probation

timeline. 12

Focused Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher

The focused evaluation is

meant for proficient and

distinguished educators and

its purpose is to support

professional growth.

If a non-provisional teacher

has received a

“satisfactory” on his/her last

four evaluations, or a

“proficient” or

“distinguished” once they

have transitioned to the

new system, the teacher is

eligible for a focused

evaluation three out of

every four years.

One of the eight criteria

must be assessed in every

year that a comprehensive

is not required.

The final criterion score will

be considered the final

summative score.





Criterion 3, 6, or 8 Criterion 1, 2, 4, 5, or 7 + Criterion 3 or 6 SG components

+

Criterion 3: Differentiation Criterion 5: Learning Environment Criterion 6: Assessment

+

Final Criterion Score =Final Summative Score

U, B, P, or D

Choose… Or…

• The focused evaluation will include the student growth rubrics of the selected criterion. If criterion 3, 6, or 8 is

selected, evaluators will use the accompanying student growth rubrics.

• If criterion 1, 2, 4, 5, or 7 is selected, evaluators will use criterion 3 or 6 student growth rubrics.

• While there is no student growth impact rating, a rating of “1” on any student growth rubric row triggers a student

growth inquiry.

Evidence

Observable evidence Evidence outside of a classroom

observation Authentic artifacts of teaching and

learning Student growth goals and outcomes Evidence of professional practice

--------------------------------The criterion gets a final score that must

be reported as U, B, P, or D(U=1 B=2 P=3 D=4)

Evidence

Observable evidence Evidence outside of a classroom

observation Authentic artifacts of teaching and

learning Student growth goals and outcomes Evidence of professional practice




U, B, P, or D

+

13

ESSB 5895 Establishes New Definitions Around Student Growth Measures

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.

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.

Both E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895 contain language around student growth including:

Changes…

14

Student Growth RubricsThe 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 #8Principals #3, #5, and #8

Rubrics are embedded into criteria but are disaggregated after calculating final ratings. 15

ESEA Waiver and Student GrowthUSED favors a system where student growth is a fixed

percentage of a teacher’s final evaluation.They are consistently behind the times and haven’t

embraced the multiple measures approach highlighted in the Gates-funded MET Study.

WA was granted a 2012-13 conditional waiver; we are in consultation with the USED regarding extending the waiver to 2013-14.

The State Board of Education is preparing a new accountability index for 2014-15, and needs USED approval.

16

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)

Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished

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.

17

Using District, School, and Classroom-based Data (Teachers)

Five Student Growth Criteria3.1 Establish Student Growth Goals

Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/ opportunity gap)

3.2 Achievement of Student Growth GoalsRe: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/ opportunity gap)

6.1 Establish Student Growth Goals using Multiple Student Data ElementsRe: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to school and district goals

6.2 Achievement of Student Growth GoalsRe: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to school and district goals

8.1 Establish Team Student Growth GoalsRe: Teacher as part of a grade-level, content area, or other school/district team 18

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** 5Criterion 6 2 2** 4

Criterion 8 2 N/A 2Student Growth Score 7 4 11

Evaluators place teachers into summative rating categories based on score bands. As illustrated above, this teacher would receive a low student growth rating.

* Must include a minimum of two student growth measures (e.g., 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.***For teachers on a focused evaluation, any cell with a score of 1 will result in a low rating; a rating above 1 in all cells will result in an adequate rate.

OSPI Approved Student Growth Impact Rating Scoring Band5-12 13-17 18-20Low Average High

19

Summative Rating & Impact on Student Learning Matrix

Summative Rating

DistinguishedProficient

RatingStudent Growth Inquiry

Distinguished Rating

ProficientProficient

RatingStudent Growth Inquiry

Proficient Rating

Basic Basic RatingStudent Growth Inquiry

Basic Rating

Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory RatingPlan of Improvement

Consequences as a result of Intersection between Summative Rating and Impact on Student Learning Rating

Low Average High

Impact on Student Learning20

Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher

A teacher’s criterion scores are


district’s selected instructional









combining the five student





Teachers with a “Distinguished”

Summative Criteria Score and a

“Low” Student Growth Impact

Rating cannot be rated higher

than “Proficient.”



inquiry regardless of Summative

Criteria Score.

Criterion 1: Expectations

= Criterion 1 score


= Criterion 2 score

Criterion 3: Differentiation

= Criterion 3 score

Criterion 4: Content Knowledge

= Criterion 4 score

Criterion 6: Assessment

= Criterion 6 score

Criterion 7: Families and Community

= Criterion 7 score


8–14 15–21 22–28 29–32

U B P D*






Student Growth Impact RatingThe sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3, 6, and 8

5–12 13–17 18–20

Low* Average High


Criterion 5: Learning Environment

= Criterion 5 score

+

Evidence

Observable evidence Evidence outside of a classroom observation Authentic artifacts of teaching and learning Student growth goals and outcomes Evidence of professional practice



Criterion 8: Professional Practice

= Criterion 8 score

21

Student Growth Inquiry 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 initiated 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;

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.

22

1970 2012

Expectations of Practice

Evaluation Systems

Principals Carrying the Load

23

Student Growth DataExamples

State-Based Toolse.g., MSP, HSPE, EOCs, SMARTER Balanced

Assessment Consortium (SBAC)District-Based Tools

e.g., MAP, AIMS Web, SBAC interim, district writing assessments, fluency checks, RBAs, MBAs

School-Based Toolse.g., content area, grade-level or other school team

assessmentsClassroom-Based Tools

Applies to all teachers25

SBAC: A Balanced Assessment System

School Year Last 12 weeks of the year*

DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative tools, processes and exemplars; released items and tasks; model curriculum units; educator training; professional development tools and resources; scorer training modules; and teacher collaboration tools.

English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-8 and High School

Computer Adaptive

Assessment andPerformance

Tasks

Computer Adaptive

Assessment andPerformance

TasksScope, sequence, number and timing of interim assessments locally determined

*Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions.

PERFORMANCE TASKS

• ELA/Literacy

• Mathematics

Re-take option

COMPUTER ADAPTIVE

TESTS• ELA/

Literacy• Mathematic

s

Optional Interim

Assessment

Optional Interim

Assessment

26

Use of Student Growth DataUsing State-Based Tools

State-Based Data OSPI will make available: Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs)

Available at end of 2013-14 so could be used 2014-15Follow students from year to year based on average growth compared to

academic peers (i.e., those who scored the same on last year’s test)For best use requires exams every yearDoesn’t require use of specific testsRequires careful attribution at a district-level

Vertical ScalingAvailable with SBAC (not with MSP/HSPE)Allows students in Grades 3-8 to be ranked across a vertical scale—like

current MAP testsOnly works with SBACRequires exams each year

27

Use of Student Growth DataUsing State-Based tools (cont.)

Upshot:State-based tools have limited applicabilityOnly teachers in Grades 4–8 with ELA or math courses

can use summative testing as part of their evaluation (HS math teachers with students in 9th grade Algebra or 10th grade Geometry could be included)

Since evaluations are due in early May and SGP or vertically-scaled scores aren’t available until Sept. 1, analysis will always be one year behind

Teacher attribution is challenging at all levels: Middle school: CEDARS assigns middle school students to

individual classesElementary: CEDARS assigns elementary students

exclusively to a homeroom teacher 28

SGPs - Where We AreWinter 2012: Currently in the process of calculating 2012

SGPs (have 2011 SGPs). This analysis will result in:o Student-level SGPs o School, district, and subgroup aggregates (median growth

percentiles)March 2013: SGPs from 2011 & 2012 will be provided to

districts for Grades 4–8 and high school (reading and math MSP, HSPE, and EOC)*

October 2013: SGPs from 2013 provided to districtsOctober 2014: SGPs from 2014 provided to districts (could

use in 2014–15 evaluations)October 2015: SGPs from 2015 (Smarter Balanced) provided

to districts (could use in 2015–16 evaluations)

*High school SGPs will be available for consecutive year tests (e.g., 8th MSP, 9th Algebra 1, 10th Geometry)

29

SBAC Career and College-Readiness Trajectory: Vertically Scaled

30

State Testing Data Schedule 2013–14

(Available 9/1/2014)

2014–15(Available 9/1/2015)

2015–16(Available 9/1/2016)

SGPs* (MSP, HSPE)

(SBAC)

(SBAC)

Vertically Scaled Score

(SBAC)

(SBAC)

Can be used in evaluations

• SGPs

• SGPs• Vertically-scaled

scores

31* 2011, 2012, and 2013 SGPs will be made available to districts.

Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Principal or Assistant Principal

A principal’s criterion scores are


district’s selected leadership









combining the three student





Principals with a

“Distinguished” Summative

Criteria Score and a “Low”

Student Growth Impact Rating

cannot be rated higher than

“Proficient.”



inquiry regardless of the

Summative Criteria Score.

Criterion 1: Culture

= Criterion 1 score

Criterion 2: School Safety

= Criterion 2 score

Criterion 3: Data

= Criterion 3 score

Criterion 4: Curriculum

= Criterion 4 score

Criterion 6: Resources

= Criterion 6 score

Criterion 7: Communities

= Criterion 7 score


8–14 15–21 22–28 29–32

U B P D*


AWSP Rubric Components(each scored 1–4)


Leadership Practice Component


Student Growth Impact RatingThe sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3.4, 5.2, and 8.3

3-5 6-9 10-12

Low* Average High



= Criterion 5 score

+

Evidence

Observable evidence Evidence outside of a school observation Authentic artifacts of leading Student growth outcomes Evidence of professional practice



Criterion 8: Closing the Gap

= Criterion 8 score

32

Focused Evaluation – Certificated Principal or Assistant Principal

The focused evaluation is

meant for proficient and

distinguished educators and

its purpose is to support

professional growth.

One of the eight criteria

must be assessed in every

year that a comprehensive

is not required.

The final criterion score will

be considered the final

summative score.

“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.” RCW 28A.405.100

AWSP Rubric Components(each scored 1–4)


Leadership Practice Component


Criterion 3, 5, or 8 Criterion 1, 2, 4, 6, or 7 + 3.4, 5.2 or 8.3 SG components

+

Criterion 3: Data

Preliminary score from Rubric

Criterion 2: School Safety

Preliminary score from rubric

Criterion 3: Data

+


U, B, P, or D

Choose… Or…

The focused evaluation will include the student growth rubrics of the selected criterion. If criterion 3, 5, or 8 is

selected, evaluators will use the accompanying student growth rubrics.

If criterion 1, 2, 4, 6, or 7 is selected, evaluators will use 3.4, 5.2 or 8.3 student growth rubrics.

While there is no student growth impact rating, a rating of “1” on the student growth rubric row triggers a student

growth inquiry.

Evidence

Observable evidence Evidence outside of a school

observation Authentic artifacts of leading Student growth outcomes Evidence of professional practice



Evidence

Observable evidence Evidence outside of a school

observation Authentic artifacts of leading Student growth outcomes Evidence of professional practice




U, B, P, or D

+

33

Bargaining FrameworkRCWsWACs/RulesOSPI GuidanceCriteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Raw Score Methodology

Who? Is in the new system?

What?Evidence will count for each criteria?

How much?Evidence will be required and what is the quality?

FLEXIBILITY IS THE KEY! 34

Examples of EvidenceRequired Possible –Connected to Frameworks

Observations Formal (at least two for a total of

60 minutes), announced / unannounced

Student Growth Goal Setting & Evidence of Student Learning Classroom School District State

Self-assessment Goal setting

Instructional & Professional Practice Additional observations

Walk through, PLC, Family and Community

Artifacts Lesson plans Student work Team/department projects/data

Surveys Student Parent

Two-way parent contact Student discipline logs Other accomplishments 35

Calibration is IMPORTANT!Districts must provide calibration training

for principals and administrators (maximize rater agreement) on:Observation of Teaching and Leadership PracticeStudent Growth Goal Setting and Use of

Measures/Evidence of Student Learning And suggested….Goal setting, Self-assessment, Artifacts and

Other Evidence Related to FrameworksOverall Expectations of Teacher and Leader

Professional Responsibilities 36

Next StepsBargain / discuss / watch *Rater agreement strategyResolve current probationary casesTrack TPEP Reforms

McCleary and Senate/House/GovernorESEA Flexibility Waiver

* Legislative action on ESSB 5895 is possible this session.

37

Questions?

38

39

Thank you!

Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update March 2013 Presented by: Alan...

Documents

Transcript of Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update March 2013 Presented by: Alan...