Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update March 2013 Presented by: Alan...
-
Upload
lesley-welch -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update March 2013 Presented by: Alan...
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
Changes in Teacher & Principal Evaluation CriteriaCurrent Teacher Evaluation Criteria New Teacher Evaluation Criteria
1. Instructional skill2. Classroom management3. Professional preparation and
scholarship4. Effort toward improvement when
needed5. Handling of student discipline and
attendant problems6. Interest in teaching pupils7. Knowledge of subject matter
1. Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement2. Demonstrating effective teaching practices3. Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to
address those needs4. Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and
curriculum5. Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment6. Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve
student learning7. Communicating with parents and school community8. Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focus on improving
instructional practice and student learning
Current Principal Evaluation Criteria New Principal Evaluation Criteria1. Knowledge of, experience in and
training in recognizing good professional performance, capabilities and development
2. School administration and management
3. School finance4. Professional preparation and
scholarship5. Effort toward improvement when
needed6. Interest in pupils, employees, patrons
and subjects taught in school7. Leadership 8. Ability and performance of evaluation
of school personnel
1. Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff
2. Providing for school safety3. Leads development, implementation and evaluation of a data-driven plan for
increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements
4. Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessment with state and local district learning goals
5. Monitoring, assisting and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices
6. Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities
7. Partnering with the school community to promote student learning8. Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap
3
“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
Includes: Content AreaSpecial Education Music PEArt
May Include:Teacher-Librarians
Instructional Coaches
Non-Classroom Teachers
ESASchool Counselors, SLP, OT, PT, School
Nurses
Districts may consider creating four-tiered systems for non-classroom teachers, but are advised to consider the design and implementation of new evaluation systems are considerable.
Staff who provide
academically-focused
instruction to students
6
Implementation ScheduleBoth 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 EvaluationTeachers
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 minutes3rd year provisional, a minimum of three, totaling 90 minutes 8
Evaluation Summative Scoring ProcessEvidence
Criteria 2
Standards
Criteria 1
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Criteria 5
Criteria 6
Criteria 7
Criteria 8
Frameworks+
Student Growth Rubrics
ObservationArtifactsOther evidence relevant to the frameworks
Summative
RatingState determined process
DistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactory
Criterion RatingDistrictdetermined process
DistinguishedProficientBasicUnsatisfactory
9
The RAW Score ModelTeaching Criteria* Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubrics
Overall Criterion Scores
Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement 3
Criterion 2: Demonstrating effective teaching practices 4*Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs 3
Criterion 4: Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum 2
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
*Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning 2
Total Summative Score 22
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.
OSPI Approved Summative Scoring Band8-14 15-21 22-28 29-32
1Unsatisfactory
2Basic
3Proficient
4Distinguished
10
Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher
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 OSPI-
approved 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: Expectations
= Criterion 1 score
Criterion 2: Instruction
= Criterion 2 score
Criterion 3: Differentiation
= Criterion 3 score
Criterion 4: Content Knowledge
= Criterion 4 score
Criterion 6: Assessment
= Criterion 6 score
Criterion 7: Families and Community
= Criterion 7 score
Final Summative ScoreThe sum of all eight criterion scores
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”.
Danielson Rubric Components(each scored 1–4)
Student Growth Component
Instructional and Professional Practice Component
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project
Student Growth Impact RatingThe sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3, 6, and 8
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.
Criterion 5: Learning Environment
= Criterion 5 score
+
Evidence
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 8: Professional Practice
= Criterion 8 score
11
Focused EvaluationCertificated 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
The focused evaluation is
meant for proficient and
distinguished educators and
its purpose is to support
professional growth.
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
must be assessed in every
year that a comprehensive
is not required.
The final criterion score will
be considered the final
summative score.
Danielson Rubric Components(each scored 1–4)
Student Growth Component
Instructional and Professional Practice Component
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project
Criterion 3, 6, or 8 Criterion 1, 2, 4, 5, or 7 + Criterion 3 or 6 SG components
+
Criterion 3: Differentiation Criterion 5: Learning Environment Criterion 6: Assessment
+
Final Criterion Score =Final Summative Score
U, B, P, or D
Choose… Or…
• 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.
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)
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)
Final Criterion Score =Final Summative Score
U, B, P, or D
+
13
ESSB 5895 Establishes New Definitions Around Student Growth Measures
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.
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.
Both E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895 contain language around student growth including:
Changes…
14
Student Growth RubricsThe 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 #8Principals #3, #5, and #8
Rubrics are embedded into criteria but are disaggregated after calculating final ratings. 15
ESEA Waiver and Student GrowthUSED 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 LanguageStudent 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 Basic Proficient Distinguished
Does not establish student growth goals or establishes inappropriate goals for subgroups of students not reaching full learning potential. Goals do not identify multiple, high-quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals.
Establishes appropriate student growth goals for subgroups of students not reaching full learning potential. Goals do not identify multiple, high-quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals.
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.
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, high-quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals.
Student Growth 3.2: Achievement of Student Growth Goal(s)
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Growth or achievement data from at least two points in time shows no evidence of growth for most students.
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 Criteria3.1 Establish Student Growth Goals
Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/ opportunity gap)
3.2 Achievement of Student Growth GoalsRe: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/ opportunity gap)
6.1 Establish Student Growth Goals using Multiple Student Data ElementsRe: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to school and district goals
6.2 Achievement of Student Growth GoalsRe: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to school and district goals
8.1 Establish Team Student Growth GoalsRe: 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
Student Growth* Score Based on Rubric
Overall Student Growth Criterion Score
Criterion 3 3 2** 5Criterion 6 2 2** 4
Criterion 8 2 N/A 2Student Growth Score 7 4 11
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.
OSPI Approved Student Growth Impact Rating Scoring Band5-12 13-17 18-20Low Average High
19
Summative Rating & Impact on Student Learning Matrix
Summative Rating
DistinguishedProficient
RatingStudent Growth Inquiry
Distinguished Rating
ProficientProficient
RatingStudent Growth Inquiry
Proficient Rating
Basic Basic RatingStudent Growth Inquiry
Basic Rating
Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory RatingPlan of Improvement
Consequences as a result of Intersection between Summative Rating and Impact on Student Learning Rating
Low Average High
Impact on Student Learning20
Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher
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 OSPI-
approved 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: Expectations
= Criterion 1 score
Criterion 2: Instruction
= Criterion 2 score
Criterion 3: Differentiation
= Criterion 3 score
Criterion 4: Content Knowledge
= Criterion 4 score
Criterion 6: Assessment
= Criterion 6 score
Criterion 7: Families and Community
= Criterion 7 score
Final Summative ScoreThe sum of all eight criterion scores
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”.
Danielson Rubric Components(each scored 1–4)
Student Growth Component
Instructional and Professional Practice Component
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project
Student Growth Impact RatingThe sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3, 6, and 8
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.
Criterion 5: Learning Environment
= Criterion 5 score
+
Evidence
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 8: Professional Practice
= Criterion 8 score
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
Student Growth DataExamples
State-Based Toolse.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 Toolse.g., content area, grade-level or other school team
assessmentsClassroom-Based Tools
Applies to all teachers25
SBAC: A Balanced Assessment System
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.
English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-8 and High School
Computer Adaptive
Assessment andPerformance
Tasks
Computer Adaptive
Assessment andPerformance
TasksScope, sequence, number and timing of interim assessments locally determined
*Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions.
PERFORMANCE TASKS
• ELA/Literacy
• Mathematics
Re-take option
COMPUTER ADAPTIVE
TESTS• ELA/
Literacy• Mathematic
s
Optional Interim
Assessment
Optional Interim
Assessment
26
Use of Student Growth DataUsing State-Based Tools
State-Based Data OSPI will make available: Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs)
Available at end of 2013-14 so could be used 2014-15Follow 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 yearDoesn’t require use of specific testsRequires careful attribution at a district-level
Vertical ScalingAvailable with SBAC (not with MSP/HSPE)Allows students in Grades 3-8 to be ranked across a vertical scale—like
current MAP testsOnly works with SBACRequires exams each year
27
Use of Student Growth DataUsing State-Based tools (cont.)
Upshot:State-based tools have limited applicabilityOnly 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 classesElementary: CEDARS assigns elementary students
exclusively to a homeroom teacher 28
SGPs - Where We AreWinter 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 districtsOctober 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
State Testing Data Schedule 2013–14
(Available 9/1/2014)
2014–15(Available 9/1/2015)
2015–16(Available 9/1/2016)
SGPs* (MSP, HSPE)
(SBAC)
(SBAC)
Vertically Scaled Score
(SBAC)
(SBAC)
Can be used in evaluations
• SGPs
• SGPs• Vertically-scaled
scores
31* 2011, 2012, and 2013 SGPs will be made available to districts.
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 OSPI-
approved 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.
Criterion 1: Culture
= Criterion 1 score
Criterion 2: School Safety
= Criterion 2 score
Criterion 3: Data
= Criterion 3 score
Criterion 4: Curriculum
= Criterion 4 score
Criterion 6: Resources
= Criterion 6 score
Criterion 7: Communities
= Criterion 7 score
Final Summative ScoreThe sum of all eight criterion scores
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”.
AWSP Rubric Components(each scored 1–4)
Student Growth Component
Leadership Practice Component
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project
Student Growth Impact RatingThe sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3.4, 5.2, and 8.3
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.
Criterion 5: Instruction
= Criterion 5 score
+
Evidence
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 8: Closing the Gap
= Criterion 8 score
32
Focused Evaluation – Certificated Principal or Assistant Principal
The focused evaluation is
meant for proficient and
distinguished educators and
its purpose is to support
professional growth.
One of the eight criteria
must be assessed in every
year that a comprehensive
is not required.
The final criterion score will
be considered the final
summative score.
“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
AWSP Rubric Components(each scored 1–4)
Student Growth Component
Leadership Practice Component
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project
Criterion 3, 5, or 8 Criterion 1, 2, 4, 6, or 7 + 3.4, 5.2 or 8.3 SG components
+
Criterion 3: Data
Preliminary score from Rubric
Criterion 2: School Safety
Preliminary score from rubric
Criterion 3: Data
+
Final Criterion Score =Final Summative Score
U, B, P, or D
Choose… Or…
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.
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)
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)
Final Criterion Score =Final Summative Score
U, B, P, or D
+
33
Bargaining FrameworkRCWsWACs/RulesOSPI GuidanceCriteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Raw 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 EvidenceRequired Possible –Connected to Frameworks
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
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 PracticeStudent Growth Goal Setting and Use of
Measures/Evidence of Student Learning And suggested….Goal setting, Self-assessment, Artifacts and
Other Evidence Related to FrameworksOverall Expectations of Teacher and Leader
Professional Responsibilities 36
Next StepsBargain / discuss / watch *Rater agreement strategyResolve current probationary casesTrack TPEP Reforms
McCleary and Senate/House/GovernorESEA Flexibility Waiver
* Legislative action on ESSB 5895 is possible this session.
37