TPEP: Taking it to the next level

Welcome

Our presentation will begin shortly.

Send your questions via chat to be answered in our Q&A session at the end of the webinar.

Today’s featured speakers

Dr. Jonelle Adams

Executive Director Member of TPEP Steering Committee

Phil Gore

Director of Leadership Development Services

This webinar covers the latest rules from OSPI and policy changes for 2013-2014.

Today’s agenda

12:02 p.m. Welcome and introductions 12:05 p.m. TPEP: Taking it to the next level • • Understand TPEP implementation process. Identify the board’s role in teacher and principal effectiveness.

• Recognize TPEP implications for your policy changes and adoption.

• Plan for implementation of TPEP in 2013-2014.

12:40 p.m. Questions and answers

Shifting thinking

Educator quality

Educator effectiveness

Data access Assessment as autopsy Reflection for improved individual teaching and leadership practice Using data to improve instruction Assessment as diagnostic tools to improve leadership and instruction

Reflection for improved collective teaching and leadership practice

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.

Perception of Educating Students Student Learning Educator Growth Reality of Educating Students

Evaluation components

Evaluation Component

Criteria (RCW) Criteria Definitions Instructional/Leadership Frameworks 4-Tiered System Final Summative Scoring Methodology Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory Delineation Measures and Evidence

5895

Stays the same Stays the same 3 Approved Frameworks OSPI –September 1, 2012 Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, Distinguished OSPI –December 2012 Rulemaking has started as of August 21, 2012 Years 1-5 between 1 and 2 Years 5 + between 2 and 3 (2 years in a row or 2 out of 3 years) Observation* and Student Growth* (*Required in RCW) Artifacts and other Evidence related to Framework Rubrics

Comprehensive Evaluation: Teachers

• • • • • Assesses all eight 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.

Comprehensive Evaluation: Principals

• • • • Assesses all eight 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))

Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

Focused Evaluation: Certificated 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 3 or 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.

Focused Evaluation: Summative Scoring Process

Focused Evaluation: Principals 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.

ESSB 5895 and ESEA Waiver

SUMMATIVE SCORING METHODOLOGY STUDENT GROWTH MEASURES

Summative Rating Process Overview

• ESSB 5895 requires OSPI to determine a summative scoring methodology by December 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

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.

Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

Defining key terms

•

Student achievement

The status of subject-matter knowledge, understandings, and skills at one point in time.

•

Student growth (learning)

The growth in subject-matter knowledge, understandings, and skill over time.

It is student growth, not student achievement, that is relevant in demonstrating impacts teachers and principals have on students.

Formal Tests in Core Subjects Only Knowledge and Learning that can be Measured All Classroom Learning

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

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

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 Criterion 6

3 2 2** 2** 5 4

Criterion 8

2 N/A 2

Student Growth Score 7 4 11 OSPI Approved Student Growth Impact Rating Scoring Band 5-12

13-17 18-20

Low Average High

* 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 above, this teacher would receive a low student growth rating

Combining measures

Instructional or Leadership Practice Impact on Student Growth Professional Practice

Summative rating and impact on student learning matrix Distinguished

Proficient Rating

Student Growth Inquiry

Distinguished Rating

Proficient

Proficient Rating

Student Growth Inquiry

Proficient Rating

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

Basic Rating

Student Growth Inquiry

Basic Rating

Low

Unsatisfactory Rating

Plan of Improvement Average Impact on Student Learning High

24

Student growth: What’s next…

Convening a group of educators to analyze the student growth process and determine next steps with regard to districts implementation of this portion of the TPEP work. It will be an initial step in looking at the implementation in the following areas: 1. Assessment Literacy 2. Student Growth Rubrics 3. Student Growth Measures 4. Examples of Student Growth Goals • OSPI and the TPEP Steering Committee feel it is critical that this process is authentic and relevant to the existing context in districts.

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

Focus on district-, school- and classroom-based tools

1. OSPI recommends focusing on four areas: 2. Developing Assessment Literacy in ALL Staff 3. Unpacking Student Learning Rubric Language 4. Student Learning Goal Setting – Questions to Ask: • Priority of Content: Is the student learning goal focused on the right material? • Rigor of Target: Does the target represent an appropriate amount of student learning for the specified interval of instruction? • Quality of Evidence: Will the evidence source(s) allow for clear, accurate measurement of student learning? 5. Determining and Using Measures to Evaluate Student Learning Goals

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!

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

Next steps

• Adopt new policy, procedure and implementation schedule • Bargain / discuss / watch • Rater agreement strategy • Resolve current probationary cases • Other (i.e., pilot option, consider minor modifications)

Sample District: Total Number of Classroom Teachers: 420 Total Student FTE: 8,423 Provisional Teachers First Year 2013-14

17 FTE Required: Comp

2014-15

15 FTE Required: Comp

2015-16

10 FTE Required: Comp

2016-17

15 FTE Required: Comp

Provisional Teachers Second Year

16 FTE Required: Comp 17 FTE Required: Comp 15 FTE Required: Comp 10 FTE Required: Comp

Provisional Teachers Third Year Total Provisional Probationary Classroom Teachers

8 FTE Required: Comp

41 FTE

1 FTE Required: Comp

Non-Provisional or Non Probationary Classroom Teachers (4 years of satisfactory evaluations)

Total: 378 FTE Comp: 75 Focused: 303

Total teachers on a Comprehensive: Total teachers on a Focused: 117 303

16 FTE Required: Comp

48 FTE

3 FTE Required: Comp Total: 369 FTE Comp: 110 Focused: 259

161 279

17 FTE Required: Comp

42 FTE

4 FTE Required: Comp Total: 374 FTE Comp: 125 Focused: 249

171 259

15 FTE Required: Comp

40 FTE

3 FTE Required: Comp Total: 377 FTE Comp: 94 Focused: 283

137 293

Immediate action

• Boards adopt Implementation Plan by June 2013 • Boards adopt Instructional and Leadership frameworks by June 2013 • Start review process of current policy 5240 and procedure 5240 by June 2013 • Boards adopt the new policy by September 2013

TPEP’s name is changing to its new name:

Professional Growth and Evaluation System

September 1, 2013

Evaluation of staff

Paragraph 1 The board recognizes that the

professional growth and evaluation of individual employees

is important to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the school district.

Evaluation of staff

Paragraph 2 By September 1, 2013, pursuant to state law implementing the Professional Growth and Evaluation System,

the board will establish a revised evaluation process using a four-level rating system

for all certificated classroom teachers, certificated principals and assistant principals.

Evaluation of staff

Paragraph 3 The evaluation system will use the minimum criteria developed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The four-level rating system will describe the performance of certificated classroom teachers, certificated principals and assistant principals along a continuum that indicates the extent to which evaluative criteria have been met or exceeded. Student growth data,

defined as the change in student achievement between two points in time, must be a substantial factor in the evaluation process and must be based on multiple measures, including classroom, school, district and state based tools.

Evaluation of staff

Paragraph 4 Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, all certificated classroom teachers, principals and assistant principals will be evaluated on either a

comprehensive or focused

evaluation using the new state criteria. By the end of the

2016-2017

school year,

all certificated classroom teachers

on a continuing contract will complete a comprehensive evaluation.

Evaluation of staff

Paragraph 5 Beginning with the 2015-16 school year, valuation results for certificated classroom teachers, certificated principals and assistant principals must be used as one of multiple factors in making human resource and personnel decisions.

Human resource decisions include, but are not limited to, employee assignment, including the consideration of an agreement to an assignment by an appropriate teacher, principal and superintendent and reduction in force. The district will not be limited

in its ability to collectively bargain how the multiple factors will be used in making human resource and personnel decisions, but

the evaluation results must be a factor.

Evaluation of staff

Paragraph 6

The failure of any evaluator to evaluate or supervise

or cause the evaluation or supervision of certificated classroom teachers, certificated support personnel or administrators in accordance with the revised evaluation system, when it is his or her specific duty to do so, will be

sufficient cause for the non-renewal of any such evaluator’s contract under RCW 28A.405.210 or the discharge of such evaluator under RCW 28A.405.300

.

Certificated Classroom Teachers

DEFINITION

Paragraph 1: “Certificated classroom teacher” means an employee who provides academically-focused instruction to students and holds one or more of the certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79-A-140(1) through (3) and (6)(a) through (e) and (g).

Certificated Classroom Teachers

REQUIREMENTS

Paragraph 2: The performance of certificated classroom teachers will be

observed twice a year

, for a total observation time of not less than sixty (60) minutes.

New staff will be observed

for the purpose of evaluation

at least once for a total

observation time of

not less than thirty (30) minutes within ninety (90) calendar days

after employment. An employee in the

third year of provisional status

will be observed at least

three times for a total observation time

of not less than ninety (90) minutes.

Certificated Classroom Teachers

REQUIREMENTS

Paragraph 3 All certified classroom teachers will receive a

comprehensive

summative evaluation

at least once every four years

. A comprehensive

summative evaluation assesses all eight evaluation

criteria applicable to that certificated classroom teacher and all criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. A certificated classroom teacher who is a

provisional employee

under RCW 28A.405.220 or who received a

comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of Level 1 or Level 2 in the previous school year, or four (4) years of satisfactory evaluations in the district, will receive an annual comprehensive summative evaluation.

Certificated Classroom Teachers

REQUIREMENTS

Paragraph 4 In the years when a comprehensive summative evaluation is not required, certificated classroom teachers who received a comprehensive summative evaluation

performance rating of Level 3 or 4

in the previous school year

will receive a focused evaluation

. A focused evaluation includes an assessment of one of the eight criteria selected for a performance rating plus professional growth activities specifically linked to the selected criteria.

Certificated Classroom Teachers

REQUIREMENTS

Paragraph 5 A certificated classroom teacher whose performance does not meet minimum requirements of the new or existing RCW, whichever is applicable to that staff member, will be

notified in writing

of the

specific deficiencies

and

afforded a reasonable program for improvement.

Certificated Principals and Assistant Principals

Paragraph 1 “Certificated principal,” “principal,” and “assistant principal,” mean an employee who supervises the operation and management of a school as provided by RCW 28A.400.100. and holds certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79A-140(4)(a) or (6)(h). 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 evaluation of principal performance on an annual basis.

Certificated Principals and Assistant Principals

Paragraph 2 A comprehensive summative evaluation assesses all

eight evaluation criteria applicable to that staff member and all criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating

. The following will receive an annual comprehensive summative evaluation: 1) principals in the

first three consecutive school years

of employment as a principal, 2)

principals previously employed

as a principal by another school district in the state of Washington for three or more consecutive school years and in the

first full year as a principal in the school district

and 3) any principal who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of

Level 1 or Level 2

in the previous school year.

Certificated Principals and Assistant Principals

Paragraph 3 In the years when a comprehensive summative evaluation is not required, staff who received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of

Level 3 or 4

in the previous school year is required to receive a

focused evaluation

. A focused evaluation includes an assessment of

one

of the eight

criteria

selected for a performance rating plus professional growth activities specifically linked to the selected criteria.

Certificated Principals and Assistant Principals

Paragraph 4 A principal whose performance does not meet minimum requirements will be

notified in writing

of the specific deficiencies and afforded a

reasonable program for improvement

.

Certificated Support Personnel

Paragraph 1 “Certificated support personnel” and “certificated support person” mean a certificated employee who provides services to students and holds one or more of the education staff associate (ESA) certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79A-140(5).

ESA

certification includes: school

speech pathologists

or audiologists,

school counselors

,

school nurses

,

school occupational therapists

,

school physical therapists

,

school psychologists,

and

school social workers.

Certificated Support Personnel

Paragraph 2

Certificated support personnel are considered non-classroom teachers for purposes of the Professional Growth and Evaluation System and are not subject to the four-level rating system.

The superintendent will establish a revised evaluation process using the minimum criteria for certificated support personnel developed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction: Knowledge and scholarship in a specialized field, Specialized skills, Management of special and technical environment, The support person as a professional, and Involvement in assisting students, parents and educational personnel.

Classified Staff

Criteria for evaluating classified staff will be based upon the job description of the specific assignment.

Questions and Answers

Thank you for attending!

Look for a recording of this event and additional TPEP resources on our website available soon.

www.wssda.org