Transcript Student Growth Rubrics - Educational Service District 113

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 Criteria
New Teacher Evaluation Criteria
Current Teacher Evaluation Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Instructional skill
Classroom management
Professional preparation and
scholarship
Effort toward improvement when
needed
Handling of student discipline and
attendant problems
Interest in teaching pupils
Knowledge of subject matter
Current Principal Evaluation Criteria
Knowledge of, experience in and
training in recognizing good
professional performance, capabilities
and development
School administration and
management
School finance
Professional preparation and
scholarship
Effort toward improvement when
needed
Interest in pupils, employees, patrons
and subjects taught in school
Leadership
Ability and performance of evaluation
of school personnel
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement
Demonstrating effective teaching practices
Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to
address those needs
Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and
curriculum
Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment
Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve
student learning
Communicating with parents and school community
Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focus on improving
instructional practice and student learning
New Principal Evaluation Criteria
Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of
learning and teaching for students and staff
Providing for school safety
Leads development, implementation and evaluation of a data-driven plan
for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student
data elements
Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction and
assessment with state and local district learning goals
Monitoring, assisting and evaluating effective instruction and assessment
practices
Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement
and legal responsibilities
Partnering with the school community to promote student learning
Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap
3
4
“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
Staff who
provide
academically
-focused
instruction
to students
Includes:
Content Area
Special Education
Music
PE
Art
May Include:
Teacher-Librarians
Instructional Coaches
Non-Classroom
Teachers
ESA
School Counselors,
SLP, OT, PT, School
Nurses
Districts may consider creating fourtiered systems for non-classroom
teachers, but are advised to consider
the design and implementation of new
evaluation systems are considerable.
6
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 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 Evaluation
Teachers
 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 minutes
 3rd year provisional, a minimum of three, totaling 90 minutes
8
Evaluation Summative Scoring
Process
Criteria 1
Criteria 2
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Criteria 5
Criteria 6
Frameworks
+
Student
Growth
Rubrics
Observation
Artifacts
Other
evidence
relevant to the
frameworks
District
determined process
State determined
process
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Criteria 7
Criteria 8
9
The RAW Score Model
Overall
Criterion
Scores
Teaching Criteria
* Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubrics
Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement
3
Criterion 2: Demonstrating effective teaching practices
*Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those
needs
Criterion 4: Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum
4
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
3
2
*Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice
2
and student learning
Total Summative Score
OSPI Approved Summative Scoring Band
8-14
15-21
1
2
Unsatisfactory
Basic
22
22-28
3
Proficient
29-32
4
Distinguished
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.
10
Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher
Evidence
Criterion 1: Expectations
 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 OSPIapproved 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 score
Criterion 2: Instruction
= Criterion 2 score
Criterion 3: Differentiation
+





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 3 score
Criterion 4: Content Knowledge
Final Summative Score
The sum of all eight criterion scores
= Criterion 4 score
Criterion 5: Learning Environment
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”.
= Criterion 5 score
Criterion 6: Assessment
= Criterion 6 score
Criterion 7: Families and Community
= Criterion 7 score
Student Growth Impact Rating
The sum of all five student growth
components from criteria 3, 6, and 8
Criterion 8: Professional Practice
= Criterion 8 score
Danielson Rubric Components
(each scored 1–4)
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.
Student Growth Component
Instructional and Professional
Practice Component
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project
11
Focused Evaluation
Certificated 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
Or…
Choose…
Criterion 3, 6, or 8
Criterion 3: Differentiation
Criterion 1, 2, 4, 5, or 7
Criterion 5: Learning Environment
 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
+
be considered the final
summative score.
Criterion 6: Assessment
Evidence
+
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)
 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)
Final Criterion Score =
Final Summative Score
U, B, P, or D
Final Criterion Score =
Final Summative Score
U, B, P, or D
must be assessed in every
year that a comprehensive
is not required.
 The final criterion score will
Criterion 3 or 6 SG components
+
 The focused evaluation is
meant for proficient and
distinguished educators and
its purpose is to support
professional growth.
+
Danielson Rubric Components
(each scored 1–4)
Student Growth Component
Instructional and Professional
Practice Component
• 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.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project
13
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.
14
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 goalsetting 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
 Rubrics are embedded into criteria but are
disaggregated after calculating final ratings.
15
ESEA Waiver and Student Growth
 USED 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 Language
Student 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
Does not establish student
growth goals or establishes
inappropriate goals for
subgroups of students not
reaching full learning
potential. Goals do not
identify multiple, highquality sources of data to
monitor, adjust, and
evaluate achievement of
goals.
Basic
Establishes appropriate
student growth goals for
subgroups of students not
reaching full learning
potential. Goals do not
identify multiple, highquality sources of data to
monitor, adjust, and
evaluate achievement of
goals.
Proficient
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.
Distinguished
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, highquality sources of data to
monitor, adjust, and
evaluate achievement of
goals.
Student Growth 3.2: Achievement of Student Growth Goal(s)
Unsatisfactory
Growth or achievement
data from at least two
points in time shows no
evidence of growth for
most students.
Basic
Proficient
Distinguished
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 Criteria
 3.1 Establish Student Growth Goals




Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/
opportunity gap)
3.2 Achievement of Student Growth Goals
Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/
opportunity gap)
6.1 Establish Student Growth Goals using Multiple Student Data
Elements
Re: whole class based on grade-level standards and
aligned to school and district goals
6.2 Achievement of Student Growth Goals
Re: whole class based on grade-level standards and
aligned to school and district goals
8.1 Establish Team Student Growth Goals
Re: 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
Criterion 3
Criterion 6
3
2
Criterion 8
2
Student Growth Score 7
Student Growth*
Score Based on
Rubric
2**
2**
Overall Student
Growth
Criterion Score
5
4
N/A
2
11
4
OSPI Approved Student Growth Impact Rating Scoring Band
5-12
13-17
18-20
Low
Average
High
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.
19
Summative Rating & Impact on Student
Learning Matrix
Distinguished
Proficient
Rating
Distinguished Rating
Summative Rating
Student Growth Inquiry
Proficient
Proficient
Rating
Proficient Rating
Student Growth Inquiry
Basic
Basic Rating
Student Growth Inquiry
Unsatisfactory Rating
Unsatisfactory
Consequences as a result of
Intersection between Summative
Rating and Impact on Student
Learning Rating
Basic Rating
Plan of Improvement
Low
Average
High
Impact on Student Learning
20
Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher
Evidence
Criterion 1: Expectations
 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 OSPIapproved 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 score
Criterion 2: Instruction
= Criterion 2 score
Criterion 3: Differentiation
+





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 3 score
Criterion 4: Content Knowledge
Final Summative Score
The sum of all eight criterion scores
= Criterion 4 score
Criterion 5: Learning Environment
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”.
= Criterion 5 score
Criterion 6: Assessment
= Criterion 6 score
Criterion 7: Families and Community
= Criterion 7 score
Student Growth Impact Rating
The sum of all five student growth
components from criteria 3, 6, and 8
Criterion 8: Professional Practice
= Criterion 8 score
Danielson Rubric Components
(each scored 1–4)
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.
Student Growth Component
Instructional and Professional
Practice Component
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project
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
Principals Carrying the Load
Evaluation Systems
23
24
Student Growth Data
Examples
 State-Based Tools
 e.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 Tools
 e.g., content area, grade-level or other school team
assessments
 Classroom-Based Tools
 Applies to all teachers
25
SBAC: A Balanced Assessment System
English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-8 and High School
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.
Optional Interim
Assessment
Computer Adaptive
Assessment and
Performance Tasks
Optional Interim
Assessment
Computer Adaptive
Assessment and
Performance Tasks
PERFORMANCE
TASKS
COMPUTER
ADAPTIVE TESTS
• ELA/Literacy
• Mathematics
• ELA/Literacy
• Mathematics
Scope, sequence, number and timing of interim assessments locally determined
Re-take option
*Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions.
26
Use of Student Growth Data
Using State-Based Tools
 State-Based Data OSPI will make available:
 Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs)
 Available at end of 2013-14 so could be used 2014-15
 Follow 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 year
 Doesn’t require use of specific tests
 Requires careful attribution at a district-level
 Vertical Scaling
 Available with SBAC (not with MSP/HSPE)
 Allows students in Grades 3-8 to be ranked across a vertical scale—like
current MAP tests
 Only works with SBAC
 Requires exams each year
27
Use of Student Growth Data
Using State-Based tools (cont.)
Upshot:
 State-based tools have limited applicability
 Only 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 classes
 Elementary: CEDARS assigns elementary students
exclusively to a homeroom teacher
28
SGPs - Where We Are
 Winter 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 districts
 October 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
SGPs*
2013–14
2014–15
2015–16
(Available
9/1/2014)
(Available
9/1/2015)
(Available
9/1/2016)



(MSP, HSPE)
(SBAC)
(SBAC)


(SBAC)
(SBAC)


Vertically
Scaled Score
Can be used
in evaluations
•
SGPs
•
•
* 2011, 2012, and 2013 SGPs will be made available to districts.
SGPs
Vertically-scaled
scores
31
Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Principal or Assistant Principal
 A principal’s criterion scores are
established using both the
district’s selected leadership
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 three student
growth rubric components from
criteria 3, 5, and 8, and is
determined by the OSPIapproved scoring band.


Principals 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 the
Summative Criteria Score.
Evidence
Criterion 1: Culture
= Criterion 1 score
Criterion 2: School Safety
= Criterion 2 score
+





Observable evidence
Evidence outside of a school observation
Authentic artifacts of leading
Student growth 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 3: Data
= Criterion 3 score
Final Summative Score
Criterion 4: Curriculum
The sum of all eight criterion scores
= Criterion 4 score
Criterion 5: Instruction
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”.
= Criterion 5 score
Criterion 6: Resources
= Criterion 6 score
Criterion 7: Communities
= Criterion 7 score
Student Growth Impact Rating
The sum of all five student growth
components from criteria 3.4, 5.2, and 8.3
Criterion 8: Closing the Gap
= Criterion 8 score
AWSP Rubric Components
(each scored 1–4)
3-5
6-9
10-12
Low*
Average
High
* A score of “1” in any of the student growth components results
in a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating.
Student Growth Component
Leadership Practice
Component
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project
32
Focused Evaluation – Certificated Principal or Assistant Principal
Or…
Choose…
Criterion 3, 5, or 8
Criterion 3: Data
Criterion 1, 2, 4, 6, or 7
components
Criterion 2: School Safety
 The focused evaluation is
+
3.4, 5.2 or 8.3 SG
Criterion 3: Data
+
meant for proficient and
distinguished educators and
its purpose is to support
professional growth.
Preliminary score from Rubric
Preliminary score from rubric
+
+
Evidence
 One of the eight criteria
 Observable evidence
 Evidence outside of a school
observation
 Authentic artifacts of leading
 Student growth 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)
must be assessed in every
year that a comprehensive
is not required.
 The final criterion score will
be considered the final
summative score.
Evidence
 Observable evidence
 Evidence outside of a school
observation
 Authentic artifacts of leading
 Student growth 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)
 “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
Final Criterion Score =
Final Summative Score
U, B, P, or D
Final Criterion Score =
Final Summative Score
U, B, P, or D
AWSP Rubric Components
(each scored 1–4)
Student Growth Component
Leadership Practice
Component
 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.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project
33
Bargaining Framework
 RCWs
 WACs/Rules
 OSPI Guidance
Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Raw 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 Evidence
Required
 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
Possible –Connected to
Frameworks
 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 Practice
 Student Growth Goal Setting and Use of
Measures/Evidence of Student Learning
And suggested….
 Goal setting, Self-assessment, Artifacts and
Other Evidence Related to Frameworks
 Overall Expectations of Teacher and Leader
Professional Responsibilities
36
Next Steps
 Bargain / discuss / watch *
 Rater agreement strategy
 Resolve current probationary cases
 Track TPEP Reforms
 McCleary and Senate/House/Governor
 ESEA Flexibility Waiver
* Legislative action on ESSB 5895 is possible this session.
37
Questions?
38
Thank you!
39