An updated FAQ section will be posted shortly.
Have a question we haven’t answered in the FAQs? Leave it in the comments and we’ll do our best to provide a timely answer.
1. Evaluation System Criteria and Model Development
2. Technical Infrastructure (Data, Human Resources, Legal, Finance)
3. Professional Development
4. Stakeholder Engagement
6. MERIT (SIG) Clarification
Evaluation System Criteria and Model Development
How will resources such as examples of 4-tiered evaluation systems, tools and rubrics be used during the evaluation development?
Our intent is to equip districts with as many resources as possible using our external website (http://www.tpep-wa.org). Part of those resources will include examples from around the state and elsewhere regarding evaluation models, tools and rubrics (including examples of portfolio collections). While these resources will be useful in the development, it is also the goal of the project to use the districts to develop a process for creating the framework utilizing the new Washington State TPEP criteria. All of the examples we would provide are based around the existing teacher and principal criteria. (Back to top)
What is the requirement around the new teacher and principal criteria?
The specific language of the teacher and principal criteria must be used in the models. The new criteria (see attached document) language must form the backbone of any model that is developed and ultimately piloted through our Teacher-Principal Evaluation Pilot. (Back to top)
What are some of the other district plans undergoing in this work? What’s worked for them? What hasn’t?
There are several districts in Washington State that have multi-tiered teacher or principal evaluation systems (please note here that E2SSB is specific about developing a four-tiered model). There are even more districts in the state that have been developing and working with sophisticated evaluation and feedback systems (both bargained and informal) for several years. In no way does this project intend to diminish the incredible work districts have engaged in around evaluation. (Back to top)
In the spirit of learning from our colleagues from around the state, OSPI will use the examples and learn from the districts about both the “process” and “products” of developing this new 4-tiered evaluation model.
Considerations: One specific agenda item for our upcoming October meeting with TPEP is to bring in 1-2 districts that have this specific experience to learn and build on their successes and challenges. (Back to top)
Will there be a single basic model “recommended” by the steering committee or will each district be unique?
The purpose of the pilot is to develop the models over the course of 2010-11. The timeline is identified in the workbook. The model must use the 8 teacher and 8 principal criteria within the 4-tiered model. (Back to top)
What is the requirement/law for using student data as part of the evaluation?
“Student growth” is defined as the change in student achievement between two points in time. When used, if available and relevant to the teacher and subject matter, multiple data measures must be used. This can include: classroom based tools, school based tools, district based tools and state based tools.
One specific agenda item for our upcoming October meeting with TPEP is to explore the multiple measures in each of the four areas outline in E2SSB 6696:
Technical Infrastructure (Data, Human Resources, Legal, Finance)
What are the bargaining implications of the districts involved in the pilots?
Districts applied and were selected for this pilot, in part, because they have reached an agreement among stakeholders regarding participation in the development and piloting of the new evaluation criteria and specific elements as outlined in E2SSB 6696. It is the steering committee’s expectation that a concerted effort be made to have full participation in all activities related to this work by the selected sites. (Back to top)
Which employees in the TPEP districts are involved in the piloting of the new models in 2011-12?
Pilot districts will determine the staff involved in the 2011-12 pilot of the new models.
Considerations: Districts are encouraged to consider how this system will be rolled out district-wide in determining participation. Possible configurations:
How should a district address the issue of timing and bargaining?
Each district will determine the most appropriate timing for future bargaining. (Back to top)
What are the legal implications for both pilot (starting in 2011-12) and all districts (starting in 2013-14)?
The legal implications around teacher and principal evaluation have not changed.
Considerations: Districts should have conversations around the implications of the development and implementation of their pilot evaluation systems. (As an example, please view this document on HR implications from our TPEP Kick-Off Conference) (Back to top)
Will the evaluation process be long form or short form? Can teachers be placed on long form evaluations every few years?
The new evaluation law details both a long and short form. Local bargaining remains an option.
Long Form Language: Defined in the legislation.
Short Form Language:
“A locally bargained short-form evaluation emphasizing professional growth must provide that the professional growth activity conducted by the certificated classroom teacher be specifically linked to one or more of the certificated classroom teacher evaluation criteria.” (E2SSB 6696)
“After a certificated classroom teacher or certificated support personnel has four years of satisfactory evaluations under subsection of this section or has received one of the two top ratings for four years under subsection (2) of this section, a school district may use a short form of evaluation, a locally bargained evaluation emphasizing professional growth, an evaluation under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, or any combination thereof.” (E2SSB 6696)
Will the state fund the pilot in the second year?
It is the intent of all members of the steering committee to work to advocate for the funding to pilot the developed models. (Back to top)
Will there be dollars for additional staff development?
We have allocated the grant funding available to develop the evaluation model (s) for 2010-11. (Back to top)
Can the grant funding be used to develop a data reporting system for smaller districts?
Data reporting systems are being looked at by state level advisory committees such as the data governance committee. These groups will be making recommendations in the coming months regarding data reporting systems. The pilot site discussions around multiple measures will be critical to our data system design. Given the limited funds for each pilot site, it is anticipated the grants would be used for development of the models in their entirety and not just a limited look at data. The data reporting system will be linked to the new criteria of teachers and principals. (Back to top)
What are the guidelines from OSPI for the use of pilot grants?
The intent of the TPEP Grants are to support both the state and district level work involved in the development of the new Teacher and Principal Evaluation Models and Student Growth Tools. Districts selected for the pilots must submit a budget to OSPI. OSPI will request clarification if any resources do not meet the intended TPEP development purpose.
What are the expectations for the professional development model? Is the teacher pro dev just to roll out the evaluation tool, or is it a comprehensive model that supports improvement in the evaluation areas?
The purpose of evaluation is to develop a system of growth throughout an educator’s career. There are two considerations as we look at the professional development considerations in this pilot. First, the pilot districts and larger stakeholder community must consider the professional development needed to implement the new evaluation models for teachers and principals.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, professional development must be considered by the pilots and the larger education stakeholders in terms of the long-term support needed to support teachers and principals as they move along the professional continuum of growth. While this larger conversation about professional development will evolve over the next three years state-wide, the districts involved in the TPEP will provide valuable input to the state regarding a state-wide comprehensive professional development strategy that ultimately supports the overall goals of implementing the new evaluation system. (Back to top)
What stakeholders do we need to get involved and why?
TPEP pilot districts must ensure they are including a broad range of stakeholders in the process of developing and piloting the new evaluation systems. This collaborative approach to this project is modeled through the state-level steering committee (Governor’s office, OSPI, ASWP, WEA, WASA, and WAPTA). Successful development and implementation will require looking at this process through multiple lenses. This process will allow both the state and districts to analyze and refine the ways we incorporate education stakeholders in state policy implementation.
In addition to the representatives from your education community, we recommend that you include parent and community representatives on your development teams, rather than simply educating them about the changes once the work has been completed. (Back to top)
This is significant work that involves addressing new elements not previously included in teacher/principal evaluation criteria. One of the new criteria for teachers involves not just communicating, but also “collaborating and with parents the community”. The principal criterion that addresses this issue speaks to “partnering with the school community”. This language indicates two-way involvement. In order to develop the measures to evaluate these criteria, it makes sense to involve the stakeholders that represent those partnering with the education community.
Including parents and community members also gives you the opportunity to build trust and strengthen relationships with both your parent community and others, which we believe will help you build your district’s capacity to support kids. (Back to top)
How do you do this?
Look for parents and community members that you believe display leadership qualities, such as thoughtfulness, discretion, dependability and the ability to collaborate with others, and invite them to be included in your work. You may be doing this already in other areas. Community groups that run the levy campaigns use this approach to add new team members, with the help of school district employees. District employees also do this type of work when they identify and encourage strong volunteers to become district employees. They pick those they feel have the appropriate characteristics for the work and then encourage them. Look for people that you can trust.
At the same time, this effort should not involve merely inviting “the usual suspects”. Take a long hard look at all elements of the community to make sure that as many perspectives as possible are being represented. One of the new criteria for principals is “demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap” and you will want to make sure that your process is inclusive of the communities of color.
One approach that will expand the pool of interested members of the community is to publish the opportunity widely throughout the community and to ask for a letter of interest. For volunteer positions as important as this, it is ok to have a “hiring process”, which may even include an interview. Even those who are not selected will learn about your efforts, which should give you a head start in building community support for the evaluation process you develop.
By including appropriate parents and community members in your process, you are addressing the ideas of partnership and collaboration that are built into the legislation. You are also building leadership capacity in your district. At the appropriate time these folks can become key communicators to others about this work and may take on other roles due to the relationships that have been built. (Back to top)
How do we allay the teacher and principal fears of change?
Any systemic change is difficult. All stakeholders must be engaged from the beginning to ensure successful development and implementation. (Back to top)
How are we going to deal with the public perception that this bill is going to get rid of all the ineffective teachers?
Public perception is only going to change when the stakeholders are engaged in the process and understand the complexity of this work. The conversation needs to focus on support of professional practice. (Back to top)
What roadblocks are in our future adventure?
As we move through this “adventure” the steering committee will rely heavily on the pilots to communicate their roadblocks and hurdles. We will need that two-way communications in order to know how to intentionally support the process. (Back to top)
Will this really change anything?
No one engaged in this work has expressed anything but the positive intention to impact change in our current teacher-principal evaluation system. The steering committee and all stakeholders are involved in this process because there is a fundamental belief in the educators of Washington State to impact student learning. Pilot districts were selected, in part, because their applications expressed this same belief. (Back to top)
What does a communication plan look like in a large district?
OSPI is working with several districts to outline sample communication plans to discuss at future TPEP face-to-face and K-20 meetings. (Back to top)
MERIT (SIG) Clarification
How can we balance the direction of 6696 with the requirements of MERIT?
MERIT (SIG) districts have been advised to utilize the 6696 criteria for both teachers and principals in the development of their evaluation models, as well as to develop their evaluation system with a four tiered model. MERIT schools will also design an evaluation process that includes student growth as a significant factor as required by the federal transformation model. (Back to top)
How will we reconcile the evaluation models from MERIT schools with the rest of the state? What is the plan to continue attending to the development of the models in the pilot district, while continuing to support the work of the MERIT districts?
Full reconciliation of the two models may not occur for the next three years as some of the primary requirements of the two initiatives are distinctively different. To ensure that there is an opportunity for the ongoing exchange of ideas, Leslie Rose, a contracted MERIT coordinator, will serve as a liaison between the Pilot Districts’ steering committee and the MERIT districts, sharing the tools, processes and presentations of each to ensure cross-initiative understanding. This will allow both the Pilot and MERIT districts to focus on their respective requirements and timelines while continuing to benefit from the progress and learning of each. (Back to top)