Transcript Slide 1

A joint BIEA/BISD presentation
BHS 5/3/12
Meeting Agenda
Understand:
 The law: SB 6696 & SB 5895
 The OSPI evaluation pilot and BISD involvement
 The timeline for implementation
 What next for BISD?
 Professional Development Plan
Background and Rationale
 Pilot was created in RCW 28A.405.100 (SSB 6696)
 6696 Creates new evaluation criteria for both
classroom teachers and principals
 Requires a four-level rating system
 Requires OSPI to create a pilot with school districts in
the 2010-11 and 2011-12 school year
 Requires all districts to begin adopting new systems
in the 2013-14 school year, and full implementation by
2015-2016.
Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot
 2010-2011: First year, some districts were selected to participate in a full pilot
 2011-2012: Second year, several districts (including BISD) were selected to
participate in a Regional Implementation Grant
 2011-2012: Joint BIEA/BISD Teacher Evaluation Committee formed
 January 2012: BIEA/BISD committee selected the Danielson framework
 2012-2013: Pilot of the new evaluation system with at least 20% certificated staff
 Must include: All principals, All provisional, All non-continuing
Additional participants:
• Teachers on the TPEP committee
• 2-6 teachers selected via a “stratified-random sampling” method per building
• 2-4 more “volunteers” from each building
 Full implementation 2015-2016
TPEP Committee
 Barry Hoonan/Peter Bang-Knudsen Co-Chairs
 Brad Lewis, Melanie Elliot, Keri Schmit, Kelly
DeGuzman, Warren Read, Diane Lionetti, Jill Kimball,
Cathy Lolley, Mike Florian, Sheryl Belt, Cami
Dombkowski
What does a “ Framework for Teaching” mean?
 A description of the teacher responsibilities that
promote improved student learning.
 A definition of what teachers should know and
be able to do in the exercise of their profession,
based on research and best practice.
 A common language that allows opportunities for
educators to discuss good teaching.
 A structure designed to address the complexities of
teaching applicable to all practitioner levels from
novice through accomplished.
8
Why Danielson?
 Teacher Oriented
 Research-based
 User-friendly
 Ample Resources
 Most Widely Used
Additional Evaluation Component
 Student Growth Data (how it will be used to be
determined)
Next Steps
May: Participants selected
June: Danielson materials provided to selected
participants
July-Aug: All principals trained in
Danielson Frameworks
September-May: Training provided to all
participants;
If I’m a continuing teacher and I get
selected, or volunteer for the pilot,
how will the evaluation work?
 The principal will provide an evaluation based on
the new model.
 If a teacher has an overall evaluation of a Proficient
or Distinguished, he or she will move to the
focused evaluation model in 2013-2014
 If the teacher has an overall evaluation of
Unsatisfactory or Basic, he or she can take a
Mulligan (do-over) & the principal will do an
evaluation based on the old evaluation system
Principal Training: Teachscape
 The Framework for Teaching Proficiency System is a
complete solution for observer training and
assessment.
 Developed in partnership with ETS and Charlotte
Danielson, the Framework for Teaching Proficiency
System enables districts and states to promote highquality observations by implementing rigorous
training for all observers.
Principal Evaluation
 Association of Washington State School Principals
 Eight new principal leadership criteria, as identified by
the 2010 Legislature in E2SSB 6696
 Pilot 2012-13 All Principals
 Committee developing process for all components
 Brent Peterson
 Bob Lewis
 Jim Corsetti
 Kristen Nelsen
 Julie Goldsmith
Creating a
Culture
Closing the
Gap
Engaging
Communities
Ensuring
School Safety
PRINCIPAL
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
Managing
Resources
Planning with
Data
Aligning
Curriculum
Improving
Instruction
Professional Development
Committee
 Peggy Koivu, Beatrice Pastor, Erin Sheehan, Barry Hoonan,
Denise Corso, Kirrin Coleman, Peg Dight/JoEllen O’Reilly,
Lydia Scheiber, Cami Dombkowski, Bob Lewis, Julie
Goldsmith.
 Math Program Review Committee: Rory Wilson, Marilyn
Tsolomitis, Jake Haley, Cathy Goetsch, Lisa Hale, Laura
Kornfeld, Sean Yarr, Mike Florian, Adam Rabinowitz, Paul
Sullivan, Pegeen Mulhern, Laurie Rice, Meg Evans, Stan
Curtis, Megan Watson, Maureen Wilson, Reese Ande,
Jennifer Burlingame, Vicki Milander, Richard Pearsall,
Carol Baker, Bonnie Hansen.
Professional Development Plan to Support
New Requirements 2012-13
Curriculum
-Transition to Common
Core (CCSS)
-Math Program Review
-STEM
Assessment to Inform
Instruction
Instruction &
Instructional Leadership
-Measure of Academic Progress (MAP)
-New Principal/Teacher Evaluation
-DRA2
-Promote differentiated instruction
-State Assessments
-Technology
Data Dashboard
Increased
Student
Learning
District Professional Development
Funds
 Developing & Using Data: 2 Data Lead Teachers
from each building to develop plans to support staff
based on building needs; 6 hours of per diem to
provide support and training to staff.
 Principal/Teacher Evaluation Pilot: Training and
support for pilot staff; Support workshops/lit circles
for non-pilot staff.
 Common Core State Standards: Continue support of
new curriculum. Align resources to CCSS. Identify gaps
and resources to bridge the gaps. Grade level/department
meetings. Participation in ESD trainings.
Title IIa- Grant Funds
 Support for Diverse Learners: Department Meetings;
Training during early release for paraeducators.
 Mathematics: Understand and begin to use CCSS:
Math TOSA, Department/Grade Level Meetings.
Additional Resources:
Technology (Levy):
 Support for new
equipment, programs,
and standards: 6 hours
of per diem planned at
building; 2 hours of per
diem to support
development/use of the
web.
STEM (BSF Grant):
 Support for STEM
training and initiatives.
Additional Resources
 Contact any TPEP member to answer questions
 OSPI TPEP Website:
http://www.k12.wa.us/EdLeg/TPEP/default.aspx
 TPEP Website: http://tpep-wa.org/