Teacher & Principal Evaluation Washington State

1. Teacher & Principal EvaluationWashington State TPEP K-20 April 21st, 2011

2. Agenda • 8:30am-9:00am- Overview and Introductions • Review Evaluation Workbook & Upcoming Site Visits • 9:00am-9:30am- Dr. Laura Goe • 9:30am-10:00am- Questions and Feedback • 10:00am-11:00am- Final Summative Scoring Overview Presentation • Planning for May and June TPEP meetings • Updates from Legislature • Survey for next year (survey monkey sent after K-20) • 11:00am-12:00pm- TPEP Team Input and Discussion for Steering Committee

3. May Meeting Schedule

4. May TPEP Visits • 1. Before the May meetings, please have the Evaluation Model Workbook completed and emailed back to OSPI by May 9th for our TPEP Steering Committee meeting on May 10th. • 2. We will use the Evaluation Model Workbook as our discussion guide for those site visits. • 3. During the visit we will also discuss the pilot data collection and implementation. • 4. We intend to put up the TPEP DRAFT evaluation models on our TPEP website the week of May 23-28th, 2011.

5. TPEP Evaluation Model Workbook Note: This is for the teacher workbook; we are working with AWSP on the principal workbook.

6. Overview of Summative Evaluation Dr. Laura Goe,Principal Investigator for Research & Dissemination, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

7. “The Need for a new Educator Evaluation System” “A well functioning teacher or principal evaluation system goes beyond the checklists commonly used in schools. The system must specify what will be measured, define how it will be measured, clarify how the measures will be consistent, and lay out a plan for providing feedback and continuous support. It will also highlight how to use the evaluation results to improve school culture, teacher practice, and student outcomes.”

8. What do We Use as Evidence to Measure Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence

9. Reliability and Validity Validity: A test is valid when it measures what it’s supposed to measure. How valid a test depends on its purpose—for example, a ruler may be a valid measuring device for length, but isn’t very valid for measuring volume. Reliability: If a test is reliable, it yields consistent results. For example, a test can be reliable but not valid, both reliable and valid, or neither.

10. Cut Score that Promotes growth and prevents stagnation Distinguishable and Scored Solid/Research-based Instructional Framework

11. How do we get to a final summative score?Models To Consider… • Proficiency Progression Model • Conditions Model • Mathematical Formula Model • Percentage/Points Model • Raw Score Model • Note: The steering committee wanted to share these options. Some of these models listed can be combined, but we are not endorsing one over another. Please consider these in your pilots and discuss implications. However, in order to truly “study” the pilots next year, we must know how we are getting at these summative scores.

12. Proficiency Progression Model • Choose the area(s) from the criteria that are most critical for proficiency the first year. Stair step proficiency requirements by adding criteria each year until all proficient. • Example: • Have to be proficient in safety criterion first year (no more then 1 unsat) • 3 out of the 8 criteria proficient in year two (no more than 1 unsat) • 5 out of the 8 criteria proficient in year three and beyond (no unsats)

13. Proficiency Progression Model Potential Pros Potential Cons Does not address all the criteria Still does not get at the actual evaluation process and determination of score of proficient. Does this set up a district for drift after a couple of years? OTHERS?? • Allows for going deeper (richer conversations) around fewer criteria. • Provides more targeted evaluations for new teachers. • Less burdensome on principal time when the focus is limited. • OTHERS??

14. CONDITIONS MODEL

15. Conditions Model Potential Pros Potential Cons Still does not get at the actual evaluation process and determination ofa score of proficient. OTHERS?? • Supports teachers at different points in career and recognizes need to address those needs • OTHERS??

16. Qualitative/Holistic Model • Review the observed and collected evidence and holistically come up with a qualitative rating for each teacher. Rubric and Observations (and possible other evidence) to determine judgment for final summative placement

17. Qualitative/Holistic Model Potential Pros Potential Cons Ownership of process would be school-based. Still does not get at the actual evaluation process and determination of scores. Professional Development and inter-rater reliability would be very hard to carry out. OTHERS?? • Ownership of process would be school-based. • OTHERS??

18. Mathematical Formula Model Add up each component and divide by number of components to drive out a number for each criterion. Do the same for each criterion to finalize summative ratings. See examples on next two slides

19. 2.6 CRITERION No. 1 – Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement. Score

20. 3

21. Mathematical Formula Model Potential Pros Potential Cons Too fine grained/useful in a more controlled assessment process (i.e. AP scoring, National Board Scoring) Relies on partial scores and there is no support for using decimal places in the legislation. (i.e. 2.6 Is that a 3 or a 2?) OTHERS?? • Easy to calculate/boils it down to a simple formula. • Easy to explain to constituents/commmunity etc. • OTHERS??

22. Percentage and/or Points Model Assign percentages or points to each form of evidence (Example: Observations are worth 65%, Artifacts – 15%, Impacts on student learning 15% , and self evaluation/reflection 5%.) Rating based on 100 Points or Percentile Used to Identify Final summative Score

23. Percentage/Points Model Potential Pros Potential Cons Inter-rater reliability a must depending on the percentage of the total score. Being used across the country in many places. OTHERS?? • Somewhat defines the targets of the evaluation process for both teachers and principals. • Being used across the country in many places. • OTHERS??

24. Raw Score Model Evidence Raw Score Range

25. Raw Score/Conditions Hybrid Model Evidence Raw Score Range Example Conditions • Must be proficient by 5th year • Unsat in safety criterion is overall unsat • Must have five criteria at proficient level or above to be proficient • Cannot have unsat and be proficient • Three unsats equates to an overall unsat

26. Raw Score/Conditions Model Potential Pros Potential Cons Discussion of which evidence/measures still needs to take place (district-wide decision so there is some confidence in the final scores?) OTHERS?? • Can be a driving at a true standards-based approach to evaluation. • Allows for conversation and dialogue within a structured evaluation system. • By combining the raw score and conditions can make the system attend to teachers at different stages in their career. • OTHERS??

27. Whole System Questions • How do you ensure professional development to implement new evaluation systems in your chosen summative model? • How does your model ensure inter-rater reliability across your district? • Can you drive out meaningful scores across the district/state through one summative scoring model over another? • Are there summative scoring models that can be combined to create a more streamlined and intentional system that holds teachers accountable and encourages professional growth?

28. What we need from you… • 1. Feedback on the Evaluation Workbook. • Criteria Definitions – Page 5 • Summative Statements – Page 14 • Whole package (i.e. does it make sense? Will it make sense within your TPEP district? Outside your TPEP district?)

29. Legislative Update • TPEP Executive and Legislative Budget Proposals Governor • Maintains the funding for the TPEP districts/consortium for the biennium. • Funds additional preparing and implementation grants for districts outside of TPEP for the 2012-13 SY. • More details available at http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget11/default.asp House • Maintains the funding for the TPEP districts/consortium for the biennium. • Funds additional preparing and implementation grants for districts outside of TPEP for the 2012-13 SY. (different from the Governor’s proposal) • More details available at http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/detail/2011/ho1113p.asp Senate • Maintains the funding for the TPEP districts/consortium for the biennium. • Does not include additional funding for preparing and implementation grants for districts outside of TPEP for the 2012-13 SY. • More details available at http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/detail/2011/so1113p.asp.