Understanding Washington State’s New Evaluation System

A joint BIEA/BISD presentationBHS 5/3/12

Meeting Agenda Understand: The law: SB 6696 & SB 5895 The OSPI evaluation pilot and BISD

involvement The timeline for implementationWhat next for BISD?Professional Development Plan

Background and Rationale Pilot was created in RCW 28A.405.100 (SSB

6696)

6696 Creates new evaluation criteria for both classroom teachers and principals

Requires a four-level rating system Requires OSPI to create a pilot with school

districts in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 school year

Requires all districts to begin adopting new systems in the 2013-14 school year, and full implementation by 2015-2016.

Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot 2010-2011: First year, some districts were selected to participate in a full pilot

2011-2012: Second year, several districts (including BISD) were selected to participate in a Regional Implementation Grant

2011-2012: Joint BIEA/BISD Teacher Evaluation Committee formed

January 2012: BIEA/BISD committee selected the Danielson framework

2012-2013: Pilot of the new evaluation system with at least 20% certificated staff Must include: All principals, All provisional, All non-continuing

Additional participants:• Teachers on the TPEP committee • 2-6 teachers selected via a “stratified-random sampling” method per building• 2-4 more “volunteers” from each building

Full implementation 2015-2016

TPEP CommitteeBarry Hoonan/Peter Bang-Knudsen Co-ChairsBrad Lewis, Melanie Elliot, Keri Schmit, Kelly

DeGuzman, Warren Read, Diane Lionetti, Jill Kimball, Cathy Lolley, Mike Florian, Sheryl Belt, Cami Dombkowski

What does a “ Framework for Teaching”

mean? A description of the teacher responsibilities that

promote improved student learning. A definition of what teachers should know

and be able to do in the exercise of their profession, based on research and best practice.

A common language that allows opportunities for educators to discuss good teaching.

A structure designed to address the complexities of teaching applicable to all practitioner levels from novice through accomplished.

8

Why Danielson?Teacher OrientedResearch-basedUser-friendlyAmple ResourcesMost Widely Used

Additional Evaluation ComponentStudent Growth Data (how it will be used to

be determined)

Next StepsMay: Participants selected June: Danielson materials provided to

selected participantsJuly-Aug: All principals trained in

Danielson FrameworksSeptember-May: Training provided to

all participants;

If I’m a continuing teacher and I get selected, or volunteer for the pilot, how will the evaluation work?

The principal will provide an evaluation based on the new model.

If a teacher has an overall evaluation of a Proficient or Distinguished, he or she will move to the focused evaluation model in 2013-2014

If the teacher has an overall evaluation of Unsatisfactory or Basic, he or she can take a Mulligan (do-over) & the principal will do an evaluation based on the old evaluation system

Principal Training: TeachscapeThe Framework for Teaching Proficiency

System is a complete solution for observer training and assessment.

Developed in partnership with ETS and Charlotte Danielson, the Framework for Teaching Proficiency System enables districts and states to promote high-quality observations by implementing rigorous training for all observers.

Principal EvaluationAssociation of Washington State School PrincipalsEight new principal leadership criteria, as

identified by the 2010 Legislature in E2SSB 6696Pilot 2012-13 All PrincipalsCommittee developing process for all components

Brent PetersonBob LewisJim CorsettiKristen NelsenJulie Goldsmith

Creating a Culture

Ensuring School Safety

Planning with Data

Aligning Curriculum

Improving Instruction

Managing Resources

Engaging Communiti

es

Closing the Gap

PRINCIPALEVALUATION

CRITERIA

Professional Development CommitteePeggy Koivu, Beatrice Pastor, Erin Sheehan, Barry

Hoonan, Denise Corso, Kirrin Coleman, Peg Dight/JoEllen O’Reilly, Lydia Scheiber, Cami Dombkowski, Bob Lewis, Julie Goldsmith.

Math Program Review Committee: Rory Wilson, Marilyn Tsolomitis, Jake Haley, Cathy Goetsch, Lisa Hale, Laura Kornfeld, Sean Yarr, Mike Florian, Adam Rabinowitz, Paul Sullivan, Pegeen Mulhern, Laurie Rice, Meg Evans, Stan Curtis, Megan Watson, Maureen Wilson, Reese Ande, Jennifer Burlingame, Vicki Milander, Richard Pearsall, Carol Baker, Bonnie Hansen.

Professional Development Plan to Support New Requirements 2012-13

Increased

Student Learnin

g

Assessment to Inform Instruction

-Measure of Academic Progress (MAP)-DRA2

-State AssessmentsData Dashboard

Curriculum-Transition to Common Core (CCSS)

-Math Program Review-STEM

Instruction & Instructional Leadership

-New Principal/Teacher Evaluation

-Promote differentiated instruction-Technology

District Professional Development FundsDeveloping & Using Data: 2 Data Lead

Teachers from each building to develop plans to support staff based on building needs; 6 hours of per diem to provide support and training to staff.

Principal/Teacher Evaluation Pilot: Training and support for pilot staff; Support workshops/lit circles for non-pilot staff.

Common Core State Standards: Continue support of new curriculum. Align resources to CCSS. Identify gaps and resources to bridge the gaps. Grade level/department meetings. Participation in ESD trainings.

Title IIa- Grant FundsSupport for Diverse Learners: Department

Meetings; Training during early release for paraeducators.

Mathematics: Understand and begin to use CCSS: Math TOSA, Department/Grade Level Meetings.

Additional Resources:Technology (Levy):Support for new

equipment, programs, and standards: 6 hours of per diem planned at building; 2 hours of per diem to support development/use of the web.

STEM (BSF Grant):Support for STEM

training and initiatives.

Additional ResourcesContact any TPEP member to answer

questions

OSPI TPEP Website:http://www.k12.wa.us/EdLeg/TPEP/default.aspx TPEP Website: http://tpep-wa.org/

Questions?