Transcript PPTX - Washington State Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project

Teacher & Principal Evaluation
Washington State
TPEP K-20
April 21st, 2011
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
Slide 1
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
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
Slide 2
May Meeting Schedule
N. Thurston
Thursday, May 12
1:00pm – 3:00pm
N. Mason
Monday, May 16
2:00pm – 4:00pm
Anacortes
Snohomish
Tuesday, May 17
10:00am – 12:00pm
1:30pm – 3:30pm
Othello
Kennewick
Wednesday, May 18
10:00am – 12:00pm
2:00pm – 4:00pm
Wenatchee
Thursday, May 19
1:00 – 3:00pm
C. Valley
Consortium
Friday, May 20
10:00am – 12:00pm
1:00pm – 3:00pm
Aspire Middle School
ESD 101
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
Slide 3
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 2328th, 2011.
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
Slide 4
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.
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
Slide 5
Overview of Summative Evaluation
DR. LAURA GOE,
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR RESEARCH & DISSEMINATION, NATIONAL
COMPREHENSIVE CENTER FOR TEACHER QUALITY
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
Slide 6
“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.”
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
Slide 7
What do We Use as Evidence to Measure Teacher
Effectiveness?
Evidence
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
Slide 8
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.
Neither
Reliable
Reliable
butor
Not
Valid
Valid
Valid
Neither
but not
Reliable
Reliable
or Valid
Reliable
Valid butand
notValid
Reliable
R
Criteria
1
Unsatisfactory
2
Basic
3
Proficient
4
Distinguished
Criterion 1
Cut Score that Promotes
growth and prevents
stagnation
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Criterion 5
Distinguishable
and Scored
Criterion 6
Criterion 7
Criterion 8
Final Summative
Evaluation
Final
Summative
Descriptors
1
Unsatisfactory
Teachers do not
demonstrate the
necessary content
knowledge,
pedagogical
competence, and
professional practice
required to improve
student learning.
Does not meet
standard
2
Basic
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.
3
Proficient
Teachers rated in this
category consistently
demonstrate a
proficient level of
content knowledge,
pedagogical
competence, and
professional practice to
improve student
learning.
4
Distinguished
Teachers rated in this
category consistently
demonstrate an
exceptional level of
content knowledge,
pedagogical competence,
and professional practice
to improve student
learning.
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)
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
Slide 12
Proficiency Progression Model
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??
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
Slide 13
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
Unsatisfactory
Unsat at end of
Prov. status



Level 4
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?)
Level 1
Level 2
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory

Level 3
Level 3
Level 4
Continuing Contract Status (New Assignment)
Same as provisional status for one year
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Unsatisfactory

Continuing Contract Status Transition Year 2012-13 School Year
Same as provisional status for one year
Level 1
Unsatisfactory
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
M
O
D
E
L
Conditions Model
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??
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
Slide 15
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
Qualitative/Holistic Model
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??
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
Slide 17
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
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
Slide 18
CRITERION No. 1 – Centering instruction on
high expectations for student achievement.
Undeveloped
Emerging
Proficient
2
1.1 Expectations for
learning and achievement:
1.5 Value, sequence, and
alignment:
3
4
X
1.2 Conveying Rigorous
Expectations:
1.4 Learning activities:
2.6
Distinguished
1
1.3 Results Driven:
Score
Score
4
X
2
X
1
2
X
X
4
Criteria
1
2
3
4
High Expectations
Score?
2.6
3
Effective teaching practices
1
Individual Student Needs
4
Focus on content and curriculum
2
Safe Positive Learning
environment
1
Student data to modify instruction
& improve learning
2
Communicate with parents and
school community
4
Collaborative and collegial
practices to improve student
learning
4
Score?
?
?
?
?
2.625
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 Artifacts
65%
Impact on
Self Assessment
Student Learning & Reflection
15%
15%
5%
Rating based on 100 Points or Percentile
Used to Identify Final summative Score
1
2
3
4
Percentage/Points Model
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??
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
Slide 23
Raw Score Model
Criteria
Observations Artifacts
Impact on
Student
Learning
Self
Assessment
Score
Criterion 1
2
Criterion 2
2
Criterion 3
2
Evidence
Criterion 4
3
Criterion 5
2
Criterion 6
3
Criterion 7
4
Criterion 8
3
Raw Score
Range
1
2
3
4
8-12
13-20
21-28
29-36
Raw Score/Conditions Hybrid Model
Criteria
Observations Artifacts
Self
Assessment
Score
Criterion 1
2
Criterion 2
2
Criterion 3
2
Criterion 4
3
Evidence
Criterion 5
2
Criterion 6
3
Criterion 7
4
Criterion 8
3
Raw Score
Range
•
•
•
Impact on
Student
Learning
1
2
3
4
8-12
13-20
21-28
29-36
5th
Example Conditions
Must be proficient by
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
Raw Score/Conditions Model
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 (districtwide decision so there is
some confidence in the final
scores?)
• OTHERS??
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
Slide 26
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 Proposals
Governor
• 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.asp
Senate
• 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.