OSPI UPDATE AND CURRENT POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES

1. OSPI UPDATE AND CURRENT POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES Presented by: Alan Burke, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent of K-12 Education Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 2012 ERNN Annual Workshop March 19, 2012| Yakima, WA

2. Teacher and Principal Evaluation Update OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

3. Changes in Teacher & Principal Evaluation per E2SSB 6696

5. OSPI/TPEP Steering Committee Will Provide: • A set of rubrics defining performance levels (1,2,3,4) for each of the eight criteria for teachers and principals • A mechanism to aggregate scores on individual criteria to a summative rating (1,2,3,4) • Districts will need to add what measures of evidence (observations, test scores, portfolios, surveys) will be used in determining performance levels

6. Educator Evaluation Measures: It Takes Many Pieces… Planning Classroom Observation Perception Survey Data Self-Assessment & Reflection Peer Evaluation Portfolio Assessments Student Work Samples Student Learning/ Achievement Data

7. SSB 5895/ E2SSB 6696 and Teacher Evaluation • Classroom observations • Portfolios of student work • Students performance data • Classroom • School • District • State • May include teacher’s performance as part of a grade level, subject matter, or other instructional team • Self-assessment and reflection • Student survey data • Teaching artifacts – lesson plans The “Sandbox”

8. Highlights of SSB 5895 • Student growth data must be a substantial factor in teacher and principal evals, and be included in at least three of the eight criteria. • Issue #1:  Vertical scaling of student test scores • Issue #2: Collective bargaining ramifications • Issue #3: Can include “team” data in individual teacher evaluation • The four ratings are named: Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished. • 9/1/12 OSPI must identify three instructional frameworks. OSPI also must set up a process for approving "minor modifications or adaptions to one of the approved frameworks”. • 12/1/12 OSPI must adopt rules (WACs) for calculating summative ratings for the preferred instructional frameworks. • 12/1/12 OSPI must adopt rules that provide descriptors for each of the summative ratings.

9. Highlights of SSB 5895 (continued) • A continuing contract (tenured) teacher with five years experience who receives a "2" rating in two of three years must be non-renewed. • The TPEP Steering Committee is given multiple tasks (e.g., refine tools, examine implementation issues) necessary to implement the evaluation system. • Supt. Dorn must give update reports on TPEP implementation annually through 2017. • Districts have three years (2013–14, 2014–15, and 2015–16) to have all cert teachers evaluated on the new comprehensive system; provisional teachers and those with unsatisfactory ratings on the old system must be included in the group that is subjected to the comprehensive evaluation.

10. Highlights of SSB 5895 (continued) • After phase in, all teachers must be evaluated at minimum once every four years on the comprehensive system. • Those on a focused evaluation must be give a summative rating based on method adopted by OSPI for each of the three frameworks. • All evaluators (principals and those who evaluate principals) must undergo appropriate training. • A professional development plan that includes online tools will be developed by OSPI if funds are provided by the Legislature. • Beginning in 2015–16, evaluation ratings must be used in the process of determining RIFs and assignment/transfer—determined through bargaining.

11. TPEP Professional Development Plan March 2012–May 2013 • Knowledge of E2SSB 6696 (2011) and SSB 5895 (2012) • Assistance in Instructional Framework Choice and Familiarity August 2012–September 2013 • Principal Observation/Rater Agreement Training • Superintendent/Central Office Training on the Principal Evaluation Framework and Evaluation Procedures

12. OSPI CCSS Update WASA Small Schools March 2012

13. Washington What’s New: Implementation Partnerships – To name a few… PLUS… Large School Districts Higher Education Statewide Education and Content Associations

14. Key next steps in Phase 2 – Spring & Summer 2012 Continue Building Statewide Awareness… • CCSS Webinar Series, web resources • CCSS Symposia for School District Teams • CCSS Overview Presentations and Support (OSPI and ESD partners) Continue Statewide Coordination and Collaboration… • Convene statewide professional learning content associations to coordinate statewide PD offerings • OSPI cross-agency / initiative coordination (TPEP, Spec. Ed, early learning, etc.) • Higher education coordination • WA Assoc. Colleges of Teacher Education (April) • PESB Endorsement Competency Revision Process • HECB / SBAC Begin Building Statewide Capacity… In collaboration with 9 regional ESDs: • CCSS Overview and Content-Specific Learning Opportunities • Establish CCSS District Implementation Network Pilot Project

15. Learning More…Statewide Transition & Implementation Supports • OSPI CCSS Website • http://k12.wa.us/CoreStandards/default.aspx • http://www.k12.wa.us/CoreStandards/UpdatesEvents.aspx#Webinar • Targeted state and regional work with regional and district leadership teams • Conference presentations throughout the year • Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium information: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/

16. State TestingUpdate OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

17. Current StatewideSummative (Student) Assessments

18. Proposed Summative Assessments in 2014–15

19. Current Testing Requirements for High School Graduation by Class

20. Federal Rules and State Testing • Only reading and math for Grades 3–8 and high school, plus Grades 5, 8, and 10 for Science are required by USEd. • USEd does not require a link between high school exams and graduation but about half of the states require some form of exit exams. • We currently spend $43/student in testing (federal and state funds)―more than most states. OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

21. Federal Rules and State Testing Education Week, October 2011 The Truth About Testing Costs By Bill Tucker OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

22. SBAC Timeline

23. Current Testing System • Cost of COEs will jump to $10M–$20M per test per year in 2013–15 biennium • Reading and Math: Grades 3–8 and 10 • Science: Grades 5, 8, 10 • Writing: Grades 4, 7, 10 • Cost: $43/student/year SBAC/CCSS Testing System • English/Language Arts and Math: Grade 3–8 and 11* • Cost: $20/student/year • NOTE: Science exams are required under ESEA but are not included in SBAC *11th grade to measure college and career readiness. We are working with higher ed to explore the possible use of these measures as an alternative for college placement (or entrance).

24. ESEA Flexibility Update OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

25. ESEA Flexibility Waiver • Alternative to ESEA reauthorization. • Available November 2011, February 2012, September 2012. • 11 states approved from November submission. • WA is one of the 26 states that applied in February. • Peer review process expected to be completed by May. Benefits: • AYP rules and procedures are eliminated upon waiver approval. • Choice letters not necessary in 2012–13. • SES set-asides not required in 2012–13.

26. Waiver Requirements • Principle 1: Career and college expectations for all students. • Common Core State Standards adoption • SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium—test ready 2014–15 • Principle 3: Supporting effective instruction and leadership. • E2SSB 6696 and Teacher/Principal Eval Process (2011) • SSB 5895 (2012) • Principle 4: Reducing duplication and unnecessary burden.

27. Waiver Requirements (continued) • Principle 2: State-developed differentiated recognition accountability and support • Reward Schools • Highest performing schools • High-progress schools • Will use cohort-based school improvement data when available • Priority Schools • 5% lowest performing Title I and Title 1-eligible schools with less than 60% graduation rate • Like current SIG process (will add writing and science in 2013) • Must use up to 20% of district Title I allocation to develop a school improvement plan that focuses on improving academic achievement • Focus Schools • 10% of Title I schools with highest proficiency gaps • Title I high schools with less than a 60% graduation rate • Must use up to 20% of district Title I allocation to develop a school improvement plan that focuses on closing identified gaps. • (based on SBE WA Achievement Awards—including writing and science)

28. Waiver Requirements (continued) Principle 2: State-developed differentiated recognition accountability and support (continued) • Annual Measurable Objectives • Using 2011 as a baseline, set benchmarks that will cut proficiency gaps in half by 2017 for every WA school. • No sanctions required, but the expectation is that SIPs would include strategies to close gaps. • N size = 20

29. Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) WA has opted to establish AMOs as equal increments set toward the goal of reducing by half the percent of students who are not proficient in all AYP sub categories by fall 2017 (within six years)

30. Questions? • For more information visits: • TPEP • http://www.k12.wa.us/EdLeg/TPEP/default.aspx and http://tpep-wa.org/ • CCSS Website http://k12.wa.us/CoreStandards/default.aspx • SMARTER Balanced • www.smarterbalanced.org • ESEA Flexibility • http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/PublicNotice.aspx

31. Thank you!