Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update March 2013

1. Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project UpdateMarch 2013 Presented by: Alan Burke, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent of K-12 Education Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

2. Steering Committee 2

3. Changes in Teacher & Principal Evaluation Criteria 3

4. 4

5. “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

6. Classroom Teacher Staff who provide academically-focused instruction to students 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. 6

7. Implementation Schedule • Both 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

8. 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 minutes • 3rd year provisional, a minimum of three, totaling 90 minutes 8

9. Evaluation Summative Scoring Process Criterion Rating Summative Rating Evidence Standards Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Criteria 1 State determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Frameworks + Student Growth Rubrics Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Criteria 7 Criteria 8 9

10. 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. 10

11. Criterion 1: Expectations • 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 1 score + Criterion 2: Instruction = Criterion 2 score Criterion 3: Differentiation Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher = Criterion 3 score Criterion 4: Content Knowledge Final Summative Score The sum of all eight criterion scores = Criterion 4 score Criterion 5: Learning Environment * A teacher with a summative rating of “D”, and a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating will receive a summative rating of “P”. = Criterion 5 score Criterion 6: Assessment 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 6 score Criterion 7: Families and Community Student Growth Impact Rating The sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3, 6, and 8 = Criterion 7 score Criterion 8: Professional Practice = Criterion 8 score * A score of “1” in any of the student growth components results in a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating. Danielson Rubric Components (each scored 1–4) Student Growth Component Instructional and Professional Practice Component 11 Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project

12. 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

13. Or… Choose… Criterion 1, 2, 4, 5, or 7 + Criterion 3 or 6 SG components Criterion 3, 6, or 8 Criterion 3: Differentiation Criterion 6: Assessment Criterion 5: Learning Environment + + + • 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) 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. Final Criterion Score = Final Summative Score U, B, P, or D Final Criterion Score = Final Summative Score U, B, P, or D 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. Danielson Rubric Components (each scored 1–4) Student Growth Component Instructional and Professional Practice Component 13 Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project

14. 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. Both E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895 contain language around student growth including: Changes… 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. 14

15. 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 • Rubrics are embedded into criteria but are disaggregated after calculating final ratings. 15

16. ESEA Waiver and Student Growth • USED 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

17. Student Growth Teacher Rubric Language 17

18. 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 18

19. Student Growth Rubric and Rating(Teachers Only) • 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. 19

20. Summative Rating & Impact on Student Learning Matrix 20

21. Criterion 1: Expectations • 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 1 score + Criterion 2: Instruction = Criterion 2 score Criterion 3: Differentiation Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher = Criterion 3 score Criterion 4: Content Knowledge Final Summative Score The sum of all eight criterion scores = Criterion 4 score Criterion 5: Learning Environment * A teacher with a summative rating of “D”, and a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating will receive a summative rating of “P”. = Criterion 5 score Criterion 6: Assessment 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 6 score Criterion 7: Families and Community Student Growth Impact Rating The sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3, 6, and 8 = Criterion 7 score Criterion 8: Professional Practice = Criterion 8 score * A score of “1” in any of the student growth components results in a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating. Danielson Rubric Components (each scored 1–4) Student Growth Component Instructional and Professional Practice Component 21 Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project

22. 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

23. Principals Carrying the Load Expectations of Practice Evaluation Systems 1970 2012 23

24. 24

25. Student Growth DataExamples • 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 25

26. SBAC: A Balanced Assessment System English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-8 and High School 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. Optional Interim Assessment Optional Interim Assessment • PERFORMANCE TASKS • ELA/Literacy • Mathematics • COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TESTS • ELA/Literacy • Mathematics Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks Re-take option Scope, 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. 26

27. 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 2014-15 • Follow 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 year • Doesn’t require use of specific tests • Requires careful attribution at a district-level • Vertical Scaling • Available with SBAC (not with MSP/HSPE) • Allows students in Grades 3-8 to be ranked across a vertical scale—like current MAP tests • Only works with SBAC • Requires exams each year 27

28. Use of Student Growth DataUsing State-Based tools (cont.) Upshot: • State-based tools have limited applicability • Only 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 classes • Elementary: CEDARS assigns elementary students exclusively to a homeroom teacher 28

29. SGPs - Where We Are • Winter 2012: Currently in the process of calculating 2012 SGPs (have 2011 SGPs). This analysis will result in: • Student-level SGPs • 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 districts • October 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

30. SBAC Career and College-Readiness Trajectory: Vertically Scaled 30

31. State Testing Data Schedule * 2011, 2012, and 2013 SGPs will be made available to districts. 31

32. 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 1: Culture = Criterion 1 score + Criterion 2: School Safety = Criterion 2 score Criterion 3: Data Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Principal or Assistant Principal = Criterion 3 score Criterion 4: Curriculum Final Summative Score The sum of all eight criterion scores = Criterion 4 score Criterion 5: Instruction * A teacher with a summative rating of “D”, and a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating will receive a summative rating of “P”. = Criterion 5 score Criterion 6: Resources 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 6 score Criterion 7: Communities Student Growth Impact Rating The sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3.4, 5.2, and 8.3 = Criterion 7 score Criterion 8: Closing the Gap = Criterion 8 score * A score of “1” in any of the student growth components results in a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating. AWSP Rubric Components (each scored 1–4) Student Growth Component Leadership Practice Component 32 Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project

33. Or… Choose… Criterion 1, 2, 4, 6, or 7+ 3.4, 5.2 or 8.3 SG components Criterion 3, 5, or 8 Criterion 3: Data Criterion 3: Data Criterion 2: School Safety + Preliminary score from Rubric Preliminary score from rubric + + Focused Evaluation – Certificated Principal or Assistant Principal • 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) 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 Final Criterion Score = Final Summative Score U, B, P, or D Final Criterion Score = Final Summative Score U, B, P, or D 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. AWSP Rubric Components (each scored 1–4) Student Growth Component Leadership Practice Component 33 Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project

34. 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! 34

35. Examples of Evidence Required 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

36. 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 36

37. Next Steps • Bargain / discuss / watch * • Rater agreement strategy • Resolve current probationary cases • Track TPEP Reforms • McCleary and Senate/House/Governor • ESEA Flexibility Waiver * Legislative action on ESSB 5895 is possible this session. 37

38. Questions? 38

39. Thank you!