TPEP Policy and Implementation Design

Putting the PEP in TPEPESD 189 Anacortes, WA

August 7th, 2014

Instructional Objectives

1. Understand the background of TPEP including the federal mandate, state level theory of action and framing of the Washington context compared to other states. 2. Understand the implementation design behind three components of TPEP: "The What” (Criteria), “The How” (4 tiers), “The How Much” (Student Growth)3. Introduce a comparison of E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895 to understand how the evaluation system evolved from a state level.

Why Measure Educator Effectiveness?

While there are many formative and summative reasons to measure teacher and principal effectiveness, we believe the ultimate goal of all measurement should be.....

to improve teaching and student learning.

State and Federal Policy Context

• Historical Context

• Social Context

• Community Context

• Legal Context

ResourcesGovernance

and Decision Making

Organization/ DesignPolicies

Theory of ActionIf we built a statewide system designed for the growth and development of educators, then students will have access to high quality instruction that meets their learning needs.

“Widget Effect”&

The Great Recession

RIF &Tenure

Decisions

$ RttT

Over 25 Years with the same

evaluation system

Shifting Thinking to a Growth Mindset

Assessment as AutopsyAssessment as Diagnostic Tools to Improve Leadership & Instruction

Data Access Utilizing Data for Improving Instruction

Educator Quality Educator Effectiveness

Reflection for Improved Individual Teaching and Leadership Practice

Reflection for Improved Collective Teaching and Leadership Practice

TPEP Core Principles

• Quality teaching and leading is critically important.• Professional learning is a key component of an

effective evaluation system.• Teaching and leading is work done by a core team of

professionals.• Evaluation systems should reflect and address the

career continuum.• An evaluation system should consider and balance

“inputs or acts” with “outputs or results.”• Teacher and principal evaluation models should

coexist within the complex relationship between district systems and negotiations.

Assessing Teacher Effectiveness, Charlotte Danielson

Teacher Evaluation System DesignHigh Rigor

Structured Mentoring Programs, e.g. New Teacher Center

Low ←---------------------------------------

National Board CertificationPraxis III

Evaluators have extensive trainingLevel of Stakes -------------------→High

Informal Mentoring Programs

Low Rigor

DANGER!!

Brief History of Evaluation in WA

• RCW: Revised Code of Washington

(Law)1976RCW 28A.405.1002010 & 2012Legislative Bills E2SSB 6696 & ESSB 5895RCW 28A.405.100

• WAC: Washington Administrative Code

(Rules)1976- WAC 392-1911984- WAC 392-1911992- WAC 392-1912012- Chapter 392-191AProfessional Growth and Evaluation of School Personnel

Before 2010 & After 2012: A SnapshotBefore Component After

Binary – Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory Tiers

4 Tiers – Professional Growth & Development

System

Developed over 25 years ago. Criteria

Describes effective teaching & leadership –

developed by stakeholders in 2010

legislative session

No Existing Requirement Student Growth

Student growth data must be a substantial factor in

evaluating the summative performance

No Existing Requirement

Educator Evaluation Data

Evaluation data must be submitted to OSPI,

beginning SY 2010-11, for all employee groups

National SnapshotReductions in Force (RIF) and Dismissal

• 14 states use seniority as the sole determinant for RIF decisions.

• Arizona prohibits the use of seniority in making RIF decisions.

• Fewer than 1 percent of teachers with two or more years of experience are dismissed.

• Rhode Island teachers who receive “unsatisfactory” ratings two years in a row are recommended for dismissal.

(Sources: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Franck et al., 2011)

National SnapshotEvaluations & Student Learning

• Thirty-two states (plus DC) have recently changed their state educator evaluation policies.

• 24 of them now requiring that student growth or value-added data be used as evidence of student learning.

• 17 states (plus DC and CA CORE Districts) require such evidence to factor “significantly” in teachers’ evaluations.

(National Council for Teacher Quality, 2011)

National Snapshot – Teacher Tenure

National SnapshotEvaluations & Professional Learning

• 12 states currently require teacher evaluations to inform professional development.

• 24 states require that teachers receive feedback on their evaluations, but the other 26 states have no such requirement.

(Source: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2011)

Current Climate and Conversation

• Vergara vs. California - California

• Parents’ Transparency Project- New York

• Campbell’s Law Comes to Atlanta “Wrong Answer” by Rachel Aviv in The New Yorker, July 21, 2014 (p. 54-65),http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/21/wrong-answer; Campbell’s Law goes like this: “The more any quantitative social indicator (or even some qualitative indicator) is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.” (Donald Campbell, 1976)

“HOW” ARE WE MEASURING?CRITERIA AND TIERS

“WHAT” Are We Measuring? Teacher & Principal Evaluation Criteria

Current 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 management3. 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

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

The Reality….for most teachers

• “If you thought I was perfect, you weren’t paying attention.”

• A teacher after getting a glowing evaluation from the principal

• “I want honest feedback,” said another. “I want to be given extra ideas and ways to take it further, angles I haven’t thought of myself.”

• Shawn Blankenship in Connected Principals, July 25, 2014, http://connectedprincipals.com/archives/10634

Unsatisfactory

Basic

Proficient

Distinguished

Implications• Turn to a partner and make a claim and

provide evidence about the implications of moving from a 2 tiered system to a 4 tiered system and/or changing criteria.– Consider:

• Knowledge and Skill of Evaluators• Capacity at every level• Ability to pinpoint areas of strength or challenge• Depth of conversations about teaching and leading

“HOW MUCH” ARE WE MEASURING? STUDENT GROWTH

TPEP Student Growth Task Force

• Committee was formed in August of 2011• Concluded work June, 2012• 18 TPEP Practitioners (2 from each site)• 7 Experts from higher education, districts

outside of TPEP pilots, SIG districts• Recommendations were completed on

Student Growth, Perception Data and Evaluator Training and Support

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.

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

principals have on students.

Knowledge and Learning that can be Measured

All Classroom Learning

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

Growing Concerns for Using Growth in High Stakes Decisions

• American Statistical Association (April 2014)– VAMs should be viewed within the context of quality

improvement.– Cautions their use for high stakes accountability.

• Polikoff & Porter (May 2014)– No association between value added results and

measures of teacher quality.• Harris, Ingle, & Rutledge (January 2014)

– Teacher value added measures and informal principal evaluations are positively, but weakly correlated.

Growing Concerns for Using Growth in High Stakes Decisions

• Brown Center on Education Policy (May 2014)– A school’s VAM negatively impacts good

teachers in bad schools and positively impacts bad teachers in good schools. Measure should be eliminated or weight reduced in evaluation systems.

• Increase in Legal Action• Transition to New Assessments

System Consistency Claim

• Turn to a partner and either support or challenge the following claim about the statewide evaluation policy:– Having common criteria (instructional and

leadership frameworks) and student growth rubrics will create consistency across the state and provide comparability from district to district.

Background of E2SSB 6696A Race…to the Top…

• Part 1 – Accountability (including Required Action)

• Part 2 – Teacher and Principal Evaluation• Part 3 – Seattle principal tenure provision

• Part 4 – Prep programs open to non-higher ed providers

• Part 5 – Requires public colleges to offer alt routes

• Part 6 – Requires teacher prep programs to administer a field-based assessment to pre-service candidates

• Part 7 – Authorizes OSPI to provisionally adopt Common Core Standards

Background ESSB 5895• ESSB 5895 – Signed into law (RCW 405.100)

June 7th, 2012• Beginning in 2013-14, all districts are required

to adopt and implement new evaluation systems for teachers and principals.

• Changes were made to three significant parts of the legislation:– Instructional Frameworks– Rulemaking Authority Granted to OSPI– Student Growth Language

Evaluation ComponentsEvaluation Component 5895

Criteria (RCW) Stays the same

Criteria Definitions Stays the same

Instructional/Leadership Frameworks

3 “Preferred” FrameworksOSPI –September 1, 2012

4-Tiered System UnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished

Final Summative Scoring Methodology

OSPI –December 1, 2012Rulemaking has started as of August 21st, 2012

Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory Delineation

Years 1-5 between 1 and 2Years 5 + between 2 and 3

Measures and Evidence Observation* and Student Growth*(*Required in RCW)Artifacts and other Evidence related to Framework Rubrics

The Truth of our Challenge

• It’s a myth that teaching is an innate talent, she says: “Researchers have found that the most effective teachers can be extroverts – or they can just as easily be introverts. Some are humorous, but others are serious. Some are as flexible as rubber; others are as rigid as a ruler. It’s not personality that makes a teacher great, but a specialized body of knowledge that must be learned – and that often goes against what comes naturally.”

Thank you!

Contact:Michaela Miller

mmiller@nbpts.orgDirector of State Policy and Outreach

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

Evaluation Policy Comparison

• Using the two bills regarding evaluation, identify policy changes that were made between E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895.

• Consider the following areas:Teacher and Principal CriteriaStudent GrowthSteering Committee DefinitionOutline of Evaluation Policy Direction

Areas of Contrast Between Legislation

• Compare the following areas in the text:Teacher and Principal Criteria

6696 (Lines 4-14 pg. 18) 5895 (Lines 15-28 pg. 2)

Student Growth6696 (Lines 15-23 pg. 18) 5895 (Lines 29-38 pg 2, lines 1-36 pg 3)

Outline of Evaluation Policy Direction6696 (Lines 1-31, 31-38 pg. 21 & 22) 5895 (Pages 10, 11 and 12)

6696 (Lines 15-23 pg. 18)

(c) The four-level rating system used to evaluate the certificated classroom teacher must describe performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded. When student growth data, if available and relevant to the teacher and subject matter, is referenced in the evaluation process it must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school- based, district-based, and state-based tools. As used in this subsection, "student growth" means the change in student achievement between two points in time.

5895 (Lines 29-38 pg 2, lines 1-36 pg 3)(f) Student growth data((, if available and)) that is relevant to the teacher and subject matter((, is referenced)) must be a factor in the evaluation process ((it)) and must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools. 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 elements may also include the teacher's performance as a member of the overall instructional team of a school when use of this data is relevant and appropriate. As used in this subsection, "student growth" means the change in student achievement between two points in time. (g) Student input may also be included in the evaluation process.