Awsp Seattle Hilton May 2013

AWSP Leadership Framework

[email protected]

Topics for this session:

• Background and history

• Principal/AP evaluation - current status – recommendations

• Calibration of elements to arrive at summative score for each of the eight criterion – how are districts handling this issue?

• Evidence collection for student growth areas – Criterion 3, 5 and 8

Clarity toward a desired outcome

Focus . . . Never losing sight of your goal

Success is not accidental . . .

COLLABORATION IS KEY!

Collaboration + Teamwork = Growth

• 8 Teacher Evaluation Criteria• 8 Principal Evaluation Criteria• 4-Tiered Rating System

E2SSB 6696(2010)

• 3 Criteria must include student growth• Up to 3 instructional and leadership

frameworks• Experienced teachers and principals cannot be

basic• Evaluations will be used in HR decisions

SB 5895(2012)

• Summative Scoring Formula• Separate analysis of Student Growth

Criteria• Matrix for analyzing summative and student

growth scores• Options for low student growth scores

NCLB Waiver

(Summer 2012)

Shifting thinking from . . . to . . .

Assessment as Autopsy

Assessment as Diagnostic Tools to Improve Leadership & Instruction

Data AccessUtilizing Data for Improving

Instruction

Educator Quality Educator Effectiveness

Reflection for Improved Individual Teaching and Leadership Practice

Reflection for Improved Collective Teaching and

Leadership Practice

1970 2013

Expectations of Practice

1970 2013

Expectations of Practice

Evaluation Systems

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Distinguished

Proficient

Basic

Unsatisfactory

Did I make the grade? How can I grow?

The AWSP

LeadershipFrameworkTo Support Principal Development

Unsatisfactory

Basic

Proficient

Distinguished

Intent of the AWSP Framework

• Promotes a growth model linked to professional development

• Provides for public and professional accountability

• Allows for greater participation in joint goal setting, meaningful discussions, increased collaboration, planning, teamwork and relationship building

• Provides clarity around common language and expectations

Intent of the AWSP Framework

• Is technically, professionally and legally defensible

• Allows for reflection in professional practice

• Leads to improvements in staff and student outcomes

• Addresses variations in school context

• Is valid and reliable

• Moves from evaluation “to them” to evaluation “with them.”

TPEP Criteria Themes

Leadership Framework Presentation

Research Background

AWSP Framework Intent

Research Background on Principal Evaluation

1. Rigorous empirical evidence regarding best practices in principal evaluation is extremely thin with regard to the influence on important school outcomes.

2. The quality of the conduct of principal evaluation may be more important than its content; strong, trusting and collaborative relationships between principals and their district office evaluators is especially critical to the success of the evaluation process.

Research Background on Principal Evaluation

3. Establishing a balance between the formative and summative functions of evaluation appears to result in greater principal and evaluator ownership and motivation regarding the evaluation process.

4. Principal evaluation systems appear to be most effective when they are based upon clear standards and expectations of performance and aligned with key goals and needs of principals, schools, districts and the community.

Davis, S., Kearney, K., Sanders, N., Thomas, C. & Leon, R. (2011). The policies and practices of principal evaluation: Executive summary. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

AWSP Leadership FrameworkContents

History and Introduction

8 Criteria (Culture, Safety, Data, Curriculum, Evaluation, Resources, Community, Gap)

Reflection ConsiderationsRubricsResearchResources

Certification (ISLLC) and Evaluation (AWSP Criteria) Comparison

Criterion

Examples of

knowledge and skills that apply

to the criterion

Evidenceto assist

placementon therubrics

Context

Criterion 1 Research | Creating a Culture

Use of Student Growth Data Student growth data must be a substantial factor in evaluating

principals for at least three of the eight evaluation criteria.

• Criterion 3 – Planning with Data (3.4)

• Criterion 5 – Improving Instruction (5.2)

• Criterion 8 – Closing the Gap (8.3)

Criterion 1 Rubric | Creating a CultureCreating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff.

1.1 Develops and sustains focus on a shared mission and clear vision for improvement of learning/ teaching

1.2 Engages in essential conversations for ongoing improvement

1.3 Facilitates collaborative processes leading toward continuous improvement

1.4 Creates opportunities for shared leadership

ELEMENTSMultimedia

(Video, audio)From the Field (Strategies from

practicing principals)

Professional Development

Forms & Surveys(Templates,

protocols, sample goals)

Books & Research

PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PLAN

School name, logo, mission sttatement, etc.

District: School: School Year: Principal/Assistant Principal: Evaluator: Date:

Criterion 1: Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff.

Element SMART Goal Strategies Evidence and Artifacts

Action Steps/Timeline

Progress Monitoring

Date Comments/Feedback/Revisions

Principal Signature:

Supervisor Signature:

Success at the Core: Resources and AlignmentEvolution of New Policy Mandates: Student Growth Measures

Teacher/ Principal Evaluation & Implementation

InstructionLeadership Modules: Leadership Teams and Quality Instruction Instructional Expertise

Instruction

Teacher Development Strategies: Active and Exploratory Instruction

Ailene M. Baxter, EdD, 2012-2013FJH SIP 2012-2013

“We Use Assessment Data

Keeping Students at the Center

to Improve Instruction

Strengthening the Instructional Core

and Close the Achievement Gap”1

Improved Performance Across ALL Student Groups

AssessmentLeadership Modules: Using Data Effectively Common Formative Assessment

Teacher Development Strategies: Authentic and Student-Centered

Assessment

Achievement GapLeadership Modules: Professional Development

Teacher Development Strategies: Support Structures to Help All

Students Succeed

Success at the Core: Leadership Modules and Teacher Development Strategies

Teachers and Principals MUST have a way of improving and elevating practice through ongoing, authentic, engaging, and collaborative professional learning.

TEACHER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIESASSESSMENT INSTRUCTION ACHIEVEMENT GAP

Authentic and Student-Centered Assessment Active and Exploratory Instruction Support Structures to Help All Students Succeed• Checking for Understanding • Analyzing Data • Differentiating Instruction• Guiding Self-Assessment • Categorizing Ideas • Scaffolding a Lesson• Reviewing Homework • Conducting Investigations • Using Multiple Approaches• Structuring Peer Assessment • Cooperative Learning • Using Rubrics • Facilitating Student-Centered Discussion

• Hands-On Learning • Promoting Inquiry • Teaching as Facilitation • Using Models • Writing with Detail

1 Dr. Gene Sharratt, AWSP 2012

ROADMAP1. Self-Assessment

2. Goal Setting• Professional• Student Growth

3. First Formal Evidence Gathering

4. Student GrowthCheck-in

5. Second Formal Evidence Gathering


7. Summative• Criteria• Student Growth

September

October

November

JanuaryFebruary

April

May

Cashmere School District Principal/Teacher Evaluation Roadmap

1. Self-Assessment

2. Goal Setting• Professional• Student Growth

3. First Formal Evidence Gathering


5. Second Formal Evidence Gathering


7. Summative• Criteria• Student Growth

September

October

November

JanuaryFebruary

April

May

Comprehensive Evaluation CycleEverett School District | 2012-2013

August Presentation• Strategic Plan• Annual Operating Plan• Work Priorities• State of the School Review

Components• School Improvement Plan Models• Updated State Data Information

State of the School Review• Targeted Data Analysis• School Improvement Actions and Interventions• Developing High Performing Teams• Support Needed and Debriefing• Classroom Visits

Second Formal Visit• Review of Goals (Criterion 3, 5 and 8 Required)• Review of other District Priorities• Review of Teacher Observation

Reports• Classroom Visits• School Safety

First Formal Visit• Self-Assessment against State

Criteria• Goal Setting (Criterion 3, 5 and 8 Required)• Classroom Visits• School Safety

Final Evaluation• Summary of Goals Attainment• Summary of Evidence and

Artifacts• Summary of other District

Priorities

School Improvement Planning Support

August Support Visits• Enrollment• Staffing• Other Needs

Continuous Growth

Reflective Practice

Formative Feedback

Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

Criteria 2

Standards

Criteria 1

Criteria 3

Criteria 4

Criteria 5

Criteria 6

Criteria 7

Criteria 8

Evidence

Frameworks+

Student Growth Rubrics

ObservationArtifactsOther evidence relevant to the frameworks

Student Growth Measures

(From 3 specific criteria)

Summative Rating

State determined process

DistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactory

Student Growth Impact Ratings:Low, Average, High

Criterion Rating

Districtdetermined process


The RAW Score ModelPrincipal Criteria* Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubrics

Overall Criterion Scores

Criterion 1: Influence, establish and sustain a school culture conducive to continuous improvement 4

Criterion 2: Lead the development and annual update of a comprehensive safe schools plan 4

*Criterion 3: Lead the development, implementation and evaluation of a data-driven plan for improvement 3

Criterion 4: Assist instructional staff in aligning curriculum, instruction and assessment with state and local goals 4

Criterion 5: Monitor, assist and evaluate staff implementation of the school improvement plan and instruction 3

*Criterion 6: Manage human and fiscal resources to accomplish student achievement goals 4

Criterion 7: Communicate and partner with school community members to promote student learning 4

*Criterion 8: Demonstrate a commitment to closing the achievement gap 3

Total Summative Score 29

Evaluators place principals into preliminary summative rating categories based on score bands. As illustrated above, this principal would receive a preliminary overall summative rating of Distinguished.

8-14 15-21 22-28 29-32

1Unsatisfactory

2Basic

3Proficient

4Distinguished

Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

Criteria 2

Standards

Criteria 1

Criteria 3

Criteria 4

Criteria 5

Criteria 6

Criteria 7

Criteria 8

Evidence

Frameworks+




(From 3 specific criteria)

Summative Rating

State determined process


Student Growth Impact Ratings:Low, Average, High

Criterion Rating

Districtdetermined process


Student Growth Rubric and RatingStudent Growth Student Growth* Score Based

on Rubric

Criterion 3.4 2**

Criterion 5.2 2**

Criterion 8.3 1**

Student Growth Score 5

*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 principals into summative rating categories based on score bands. As illustrated below, this principal would receive a low student growth rating

3-5 6-9 10-12Low Average High

Summati

ve Rating

Distinguished Proficient Rating1 Year Growth Plan

Distinguished Rating

ProficientProficient Rating1 Year Growth Plan

Proficient Rating

Basic

Basic Rating

Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory RatingPlan of Improvement

Low Average High

Impact on Student Learning

Basic Rating1 Year Growth Plan

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.

Standards

Criteria 1

Criteria 3

Criteria 4

Criteria 5

Criteria 6

Criteria 7

Criteria 8

Evidence

Framework Component

s +


(3, 5, 8)



Criterion = Summative

Rating


Criteria 6

One Criterion is chosen and approved by

evaluator

Focused Evaluation Summative Scoring Process

Criterion 1

Criterion 2

Criterion 3

Criterion 4

Criterion 5

Criterion 6

Criterion 7

Criterion 8

Focused Evaluation

It is student growth, not student achievement, that is relevant in demonstrating impacts teacher and

principals have on students.

Formal Tests in Core Subjects Only

Knowledge and Learning that can be

Measured

All Classroom Learning

State-based

Tools

District and School-Based

Tools

Classroom-

based To

ols

59

Student Growth DataExamples

• State-Based Tools (with proposed changes)– e.g., MSP, HSPE, EOCs, SMARTER Balanced

Assessment Consortium (SBAC)• District-Based Tools

– e.g., MAP, AIMS Web, SBAC interim• School-Based Tools

– e.g., content area, grade-level or other school team assessments

• Classroom-Based Tools– Applies to all teachers

59

Substantial factor Student growth data must be

a substantial factor in evaluating principals for at

least three of the eight evaluation criteria.P.7 (ESSB 5895 PL)

Multiple MeasuresStudent growth data must be based on multiple measures

that include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools.

P. 8 (ESSB 5895 PL)

Student growth means the change in student

achievement between two points in time.

P.8 (ESSB 5895 PL)

3.4 Planning with data

5.2 Improving Instruction

8.3 Closing the gap



8.3 Closing the gap



8.3 Closing the gap



8.3 Closing the gap

DISTRICT DECISION-MAKING MATRIX

Progress Elementary

Schools

Two Points in TimeLeadership Goals

Hardy Middle School

Success High School

Achievement Alternative School

Substantial factor Student growth data must be a substantial factor in evaluating principals for at least three of the eight evaluation criteria.

P.7 (ESSB 5895 PL)

Multiple MeasuresStudent growth data must be

based on multiple measures that include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-

based tools.P. 8 (ESSB 5895 PL)

Two Points in Time

Student growth means the change in student

achievement between two points in time.

P.8 (ESSB 5895 PL)

3.4 Assists staff to use data to guide, modify and improve classroom teaching and learning.

5.2 Assists staff in developing required student growth plan and identifying valid, reliable sources of evidence of effectiveness.

8.3 provides evidence of growth in student learning.

State-based tools, e.g., MSP, HSPE, EOCs, SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)

District-based tools, e.g., MAP, AIMS, Web, SBAC interim

School-based tools., e.g., content area, grade-level or other school team assessments

Classroom-based tools (applies to all teachers)

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

Lexile Scores

Data Walls : (explanation: http://web.nmusd.us/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1264862614295 )



8.3 Closing the gap

3.4 Assists staff to use data to guide, modify and improve classroom teaching and learning.

5.2 Assists staff in developing required student growth plan and identifying valid, reliable sources of evidence of effectiveness.

8.3 provides evidence of growth in student learning.

State-based tools, e.g., HSPE, EOCs, WELPA, SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)

District-based tools, e.g., MAP, AIMS, Web, SBAC interim

School-based tools., e.g., content area, grade-level or other school team assessments

Classroom-based tools (applies to all teachers)

District Reading/writing scores

Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) is a reading assessment program which provides immediate, actionable data on students' reading levels and growth over time.

3.4 By April 1, each common content area team will hold a data talk with a building administrator discussing the results of a common formative or summative assessment. This information will be used to plan interventions and inform the next steps of instruction.

5.2 Monthly, each administrator will individually deliver FINC rate information to every teacher with the goal of achieving a 90% passing rate. Teachers will be supported in achieving this goal by having individual conferences with the administrator, assistance in planning interventions and academic support plans for students who are behind.

8.3 Every six weeks disaggregated FINC rate data will be presented to each content area team. Content teams will develop academic intervention and student supports for each subgroup that is below the 90% targeted passing rate.

DISTRICT DECISION-MAKING MATRIX

Elementary

Schools

Leadership Goals

Middle School

High School

http://web.nmusd.us/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1264862614295



Rater Agreement Background

• The TPEP project has relied heavily on the growing body of research, the framework authors and the practical input from practitioners in the pilot sites to create a “working definition” of rater agreement for the 2012-13 school year.

• The new law requires that evaluators of both teachers and principals “must engage in professional development designed to implement the revised systems and maximize rater agreement.”

Rater Agreement Definition

The extent to which the scores between the raters have consistency and accuracy against predetermined standards. The predetermined standards are the instructional and leadership frameworks and rubrics that define the basis for summative criterion level scores.

Stages of Rater Agreement2-3 Day

Foundational

Training

Ongoing Rater

Agreement Training

Topics for this session: What I hope you heard.

• How research supports the framework• Research base is provided for each criterion and each indicator under the

criteria.

• How Washington’s eight principal evaluation criteria are addressed• Seven of the eight Washington criteria came directly from the AWSP

Framework. • There is now a strong match between the framework and the eight criteria.

• Key strengths of the framework• This is a Washington state framework designed by and for Washington

administrators, responsive to Washington state statutes.

• The role of evidence gathering when putting the framework into practice• The intent behind the framework is professional growth. Evidence related

to the various components will not only assist in assigning scores on the rubric, it will lay the foundation for professional growth.

To be continued….Gene Sharratt

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Recommendations and Suggestions for Effective

Principal Evaluations

Putting the Pieces Together

1. Evaluation should stimulate and guide a principal’s professional development.

2. Evaluation protocols should be aligned with important school and student outcomes (e.g., student achievement and effective instruction).

3. Evaluators should acquire appropriate feedback from multiple stakeholders.

4. Evaluations are enriched and strengthened when evidence is collected through multiple methods (e.g. portfolios, self-assessments, 360-degree feedback, and outcome-based assessments).

5. Evaluation systems should be flexible enough to account for variations in school contexts and environments.

6. Principals should be engaged partners in the process of establishing evaluation goals and objectives and assessing their own performance.

7. The quality of the conduct of principal evaluation may be more important than its content; strong, trusting and collaborative relationships between principals and their district office evaluators is especially critical to the success of the evaluation process.

8. Evaluation procedures and tools should be reliable and valid.

9. Evaluation systems should be based on established standards of administrative practice and on objective and measurable performance objectives.

10. School district leaders should regularly assess the alignment between the district’s principal evaluation system and the critical goals and needs of principals, the schools, the district and the community.

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Provisional TeachersFirst Year

Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive

Provisional TeachersSecond Year Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive

Provisional TeachersThird Year Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive

ProbationaryClassroom Teachers

Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive

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

25% on Comp75% on Focused



25% on Comp

75% on Focused

Four Year Implementation Plan

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Provisional TeachersFirst Year

17 FTERequired: Comp




Provisional TeachersSecond Year





Provisional TeachersThird Year

8 FTERequired: Comp




Total Provisional 41 FTE 48 FTE 42 FTE 40 FTEProbationaryClassroom Teachers

1 FTERequired: Comp

3 FTERequired: Comp

4 FTERequired: Comp

3 FTERequired: Comp

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

Total: 378 FTE

Comp: 75Focused: 303

Total: 369 FTE


Total: 374 FTE


Total: 377 FTE


Total teachers on a Comprehensive:

117

161 171 137

Total teachers on a Focused:

303 279 259 293

Sample District: Total Number of Classroom Teachers: 420 Total Student FTE: 8,423

Cougar Greats!

Awsp Seattle Hilton May 2013

Education

Transcript of Awsp Seattle Hilton May 2013