Transcript Document

TPEP Implementation:
Structures, roles and policy
implications
ERNN Conference
February 28, 2015
Slide 1
Purposes of Evaluation
• Acknowledge the critical importance of
teacher and leadership quality in impacting
student growth and support professional
learning
• Identify particular areas of strength and
opportunities for improvement
• Assist educators needing improvement in
making those improvements
WAC 392-191A-050
Slide 2
TPEP 2014-15
• Transition Year 2 of 3
- all new educators and those on probation
- most experienced educators (local decision)
» 83% of teachers, 95% of principals have transitioned
» 49% teachers on Comprehensive, 34% on Focused
• $5m in teacher training allocated to districts
» 80% additional pay for educators to facilitate or
participate in professional learning re TPEP
Slide 3
General Perceptions
• No longer focused on understanding the
specifics of the process
• Big paradigm shift: growth/strengths-based
• District leaders views differ from those of
principals/teachers
• Worthwhile, but not yet smooth
Slide 4
Key Messages
•
•
•
•
Be relentless about rater agreement
Relationships and dialogue matter
Commit to building expertise over time
Collective responsibility for success
Slide 5
Challenges
• Evaluators need ongoing training
• Evaluators need time and support to do the
work
• Maintain a learning stance – no one knows it
all …. yet
Slide 6
Evaluation Data
A
B
C
Highly
Effective
38
5
52
Effective
58
93.7
43
Needs
Improvement
4
1.3
4.6
Unsat.
1
0
0.4
If these schools were in your district
what questions might you ask?
Slide 7
Building Rater Agreement
• Questions for district and school leaders to
consider when examining their own data
• Rater agreement planning tool, videos,
workshops, online module
• Practice, practice, practice
Slide 8
What’s required during the cycle?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Observations
Written notes
Evidence
Conferences
Early-career teachers
Timelines
Forms
Slide 9
In May/June, what about….
• …the summative report?
• …Low student growth impact rating on a
Comprehensive?
• …“1” in any SG rubric row?
• Provisional status teacher?
Slide 10
Who is Monitoring?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
First year teacher
Provisional educator with P and D
Provisional educator with B or U
Experienced educator with P or D
Experienced educator with B or U
Educator with Low Student Growth Impact Rating
Experienced educator with B and B
Experienced educator with three previous Focused
Slide 11
Evaluation data and HR
• MUST be a factor in 2015-16
• OSPI collected baseline data about 2013-14
uses in SEES
• Distinguished Educator recognition required
– Leg policy changes proposed… stay tuned
Slide 12
• Jeanne Harmon
• [email protected]
• 360-725-6116
Slide 13
Comprehensive Evaluation – CEL – Certificated Classroom Teacher
Criterion Score!
•
Districts create procedures and
practices to establish Criterion
Scores and the eight criterion are
Each
and
is scored 1 – 4 points. All identified
rubrics (framework and student growth) must be included.
Summative Rating
summed equally to create a
Summative Score.
!
The sum of all eight criterion scores
Criterion 1: Expectations
C1 SCORE!
8–14
15–21
22–28
29–32
U
B
P
D*
Criterion 2: Instruction
•
Criterion Scores include
applicable framework rubrics and
Washington State student growth
rubrics.
•
C2 SCORE!
Criterion 3: Differentiation
C3 SCORE!
The Student Growth Impact
Rating is the sum of the five
student growth rubric
components from criteria 3, 6,
Student Growth Impact Rating
The sum of all five student growth
components from criteria 3, 6, and 8
Criterion 4: Content Knowledge
C4 SCORE!
and 8.!
•
*Educators with a “Distinguished”
Summative Rating and a “Low”
Student Growth Impact Rating
cannot be rated higher than
A “Low” Student Growth Impact
Rating triggers a student growth
Student Growth rubric scores do
not need to become part of the
summative record unless the total
is in the “Low” range or any
individual student growth score is
a rating of “1”.
18–20
High
C5 SCORE!
Criterion 6: Assessment
C6 SCORE!
Final Summative Rating
Criterion 7: Families and Community
inquiry regardless of Summative
Score.
•
13–17
Average
Criterion 5: Learning Environment
“Proficient.”*!
•
5–12
Low*
!
The result of the intersection between Summative
Rating and Student Growth Impact Rating
!
C7 SCORE!
Dis%nguished!
!
!
Criterion 8: Professional Practice
Profic
i ent!
!
C8 SCORE!
Basic!
Rubric Components!(each scored 1–4)!
Low!
Student Growth Component!
Instructional and Professional Practice
Component
!
Unsa%sfactory!
!
Plan!of!improvement!
Average!
High!
TOTAL!
SCORE"
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project – July 2014
Slide 14
Student Growth Consistent
• Required for all teachers and all principals on the
revised system
• Teachers focus on whole class; a group of students
not reaching full potential; a group of students “in
common” with colleagues
• Principals focus on whole-school achievement;
students assigned to a subset of teachers; subsets of
students selected for closing identifed gaps.
• Multiple measures required – classroom, school,
district, state
Slide 15