FAQs



Background
Employee Groups
Implementation
Evaluation Components
Student Growth
Consequences or Outcomes of Evaluation
Provisional Status
eVAL
Plans for 2014-2015



Download the FAQs as a PDF.


Background

Why has Washington changed the evaluation laws for certificated classroom teachers and certificated principals and assistant principals?

Washington is one of 31 states to change educator evaluation laws over the past three years. The Washington State Legislature passed E2SSB 6696 in 2010 that created the Teacher and Principal Evaluation Pilot (TPEP) and TPEP Steering Committee.

What is the TPEP Steering Committee?

The TPEP Steering Committee was formed per E2SSB 6696 in July, 2010. The legislation calls for

“OSPI, in collaboration with state associations representing teachers, principals, administrators, and parents”

to oversee the work of the TPEP pilots. In ESSB 5895, school board members were added and the legislation notes that this group shall be called “the steering committee.”

The original five TPEP Steering Committee organizations (OSPI, WEA, AWSP, WASA, and WSPTA) were joined by WSSDA in May, 2011.

How was the revised evaluation system developed?

The revised evaluation system was developed by the nine pilot sites and the TPEP Steering Committee. The experience and voice of the pilot site practitioners was vitally important in developing rubrics, rules, and procedures for the revised system.

Have there been any updates to the original 2010 legislation?

During the 2012 legislative session, educator evaluation was taken up once more by the legislature and ESSB 5895 passed and was signed into law June 7, 2012. ESSB 5895 amends RCW 28A.405.100.

What policies are set at the state level and what flexibility do districts have?

The Decision Matrix (PDF) identifies the various aspects of the revised evaluation system and defines the state and local decision-making process.

 



Employee Groups

What employee groups should be considered in the revised evaluation system?

The revised evaluation system covers certificated classroom teachers and certificated principals and assistant principals.

What are the definitions of a “certificated classroom teacher?”

WAC 392-191A-030 states:

“Certificated classroom teacher” and “teacher” mean a certificated employee who provides academically-focused instruction to students and holds one or more of the certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79A-140 (1) through (3) and (6)(a) through (e) and (g).

Who is included in “certificated classroom teachers?”

The revised evaluation system is built around the criteria in RCW 28A.405.100; reviewing the criteria and instructional frameworks is advised. A certificated employee who is providing academically focused instruction to students, regardless of the size of the class, should be considered a “classroom teacher.” Classroom teachers typically include:

  • Core Content Area (English L/A, Mathematics, Science, History/Social Studies)
  • Phyical Education
  • Music
  • Art
  • Special Education
  • Other electives

Certificated classroom teachers may also include librarians and instructional coaches/TOSAs, if they provide academically-focused instruction to students.

Note: The above list provides some examples and is not a definitive list that includes every possible subject or elective area.

What does it mean to provide “academically focused instruction to students?”

“Academically focused” means that the teacher is responsible for teaching content that helps lead students to college or career using learning standards that guide instruction and specify outcomes for student learning.

What is the definition of “certificated principal and assistant principal?”

WAC 392-191A-030 states:

“Certificated principal,” “principal” and “assistant principal” mean a person who is employed to supervise the operation and management of a school as provided by RCW 28A.400.100 and holds certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79A-140 (4)(a) or (6)(h).

Who is included in “assistant principals?”

The revised evaluation system is designed for certificated principals and assistant principals. Because this system is built around the criteria in RCW 28A.405.100, reviewing the leadership criteria and frameworks to determine whether assigned duties fit the definition. Pay careful attention to those in OSPI Duty Root 25 (Other School Admin), like athletic directors, non-traditional assistant principals, and dean positions.

What is the definition for certificated support personnel (ESAs: Counselors, SLPs, OTs, School Psychologists, PTs, School Nurses, Social Workers)?

WAC 392-191A-030 states:

“Certificated support personnel” and “certificate support person” mean a certificated employee who provides services to students and holds one or more of the educational staff associate certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79A-140(5).

Are ESAs included in the revised evaluation system?

Generally speaking, an ESA is not considered a “certificated classroom teacher” and the revised criteria and frameworks were not designed with their job responsibilities in mind. Since the revised evaluation system is based on skills, knowledge, and dispositions related to a specific job, the frameworks associated with classroom teachers may not be relevant for many ESA positions.

Districts may create four-tiered systems for any employee group not on the revised system for certificated teachers and principals (ESAs, classified staff, etc.), but are advised to consider the design and implementation of the revised evaluation system first and foremost.

 



Implementation

How will a school board make informed decisions about the details of the evaluation system in order to adopt a schedule for implementation?

The legislation requires:

  • School district board of directors to adopt an implementation schedule beginning in 2013–14.
  • All provisional and probationary classroom teachers begin in 2013–14 on a comprehensive evaluation.
  • All principals in their first three consecutive years, those judged unsatisfactory in 2012-13, or those in their first year in a district require a comprehensive principal evaluation in 2013–14.
  • All classroom teachers, principals, and assistant principals are evaluated under the revised system no later than 2015–16.
  • Nothing prevents earlier transition

The law stipulates that

“all classroom teachers are evaluated under the revised revised system no later than 2015–16,”

but does not require that all classroom teachers have a comprehensive evaluation by 2015–16.

How do the requirements differ between 2013–14 and 2015–16?

In 2013–14 and 2014–15, school districts may consider transitioning some or all of their certificated classroom teachers, principals and assistant principals to the revised evaluation system. Beginning with the 2015–16 school year, all certificated classroom teachers, principals, and assistant principals must be on the revised system (either comprehensive or focused evaluations).

What authority do school boards have in the revised evaluation system?

According to the legislation, the two primary responsibilities school directors have are to establish their districts’ evaluative criteria (containing, at a minimum, the criteria established by OSPI) and a district implementation schedule.

Establishing Criteria
RCW 28A.405.100(1)(b) states:

“ Every board of directors shall, in accordance with procedure provided in RCW 41.59.010 through 41.59.170, 41.59.910, and 41.59.920 establish evaluative criteria and procedures for all certificated classroom teachers and certificated support personnel. The evaluative criteria must contain as a minimum the criteria established by the superintendent of public instruction pursuant to this section and must be prepared within six months following adoption of the superintendent of public instruction’s minimum criteria. The district must certify to the superintendent of public instruction that evaluative criteria have been so prepared by the district.”

Implementation Schedule RCW 28A.405.100(7)(c) states:

“Each school district board of directors shall adopt a schedule for implementation of the revised evaluation systems that transitions a portion of classroom teachers and principals in the district to the revised evaluation systems each year beginning no later than the 2013–14 school year, until all classroom teachers and principals are being evaluated under the revised evaluation systems no later than the 2015–16 school year. A school district is not precluded from completing the transition of all classroom teachers and principals to the revised evaluation systems before the 2015–16 school year. The schedule adopted under this subsection (7)(c) must provide that the following employees are transitioned to the revised evaluation systems beginning in the 2013–14 school year).
  1. Classroom teachers who are provisional employees under RCW 28A.405.220;
  2. Classroom teachers who are on probation under subsection (4) of this section;
  3. Principals in the first three consecutive school years of employment as a principal;
  4. Principals whose work is not judged satisfactory in their most recent evaluation; and
  5. Principals previously employed as a principal by another school district in the state of Washington for three or more consecutive school years and in the first full year as a principal in the school district.”

Are there guidelines or recommendations on developing an implementation schedule?

For more guidance on implementation schedules, please read the TPEP Steering Committee’s recommendations on implementation (PDF). This four-year implementation recommendation allows for:

  • More intentional rater agreement training during the first years of implementation.
  • More reasonable accommodation for the variety of teacher-principal caseload numbers.
  • More careful evaluations of provisional status teachers that will be on a comprehensive evaluation in the first year of implementation.

What determines whether certificated classroom teacher, principals and assistant principals begin with a focused or a comprehensive evaluation?1

The TPEP Steering Committee recommends that all certificated classroom teachers, principals, and assistant principals are evaluated on either a comprehensive or focused evaluation using the revised state criteria beginning in 2013–14 and that all classroom teachers have a comprehensive evaluation by the end of the 2016–17 school year.

Districts will locally determine an implementation schedule based on the number of staff requiring a comprehensive evaluation from the list above.

Keep in mind that the intent of focused evaluation is for proficient or distinguished practitioners. Early in implementation, there was not a defined baseline for performance on the revised criteria, but the TPEP Steering Committee expects that educators identified for a focused evaluation have four years of satisfactory evaluations on the district’s previous system. Once educators have been in the revised system for at least one year, RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(i) states:

“In the years when a comprehensive summative evaluation is not required, classroom teachers and principals who received a comprehensive evaluation performance rating of level 3 or above in the previous school year are required to complete a focused evaluation.”

Certificated Classroom Teachers

During the 2013-15 transition years, the TPEP Steering Committee recommends that any certificated classroom teacher with four years of satisfactory evaluations on the district’s previous evaluation system can move to either the comprehensive or focused evaluation on the revised system. (RCW 28A.405.100(11)).

Certificated Principals and Assistant Principals

RCW 28A.405.100(12)(b)(ii) provides that

“[p]rincipals in the first three consecutive school years of employment as a principal”

must receive an

“annual comprehensive summative evaluation”.

During that time, principals cannot be placed on a focused evaluation. The statute doesn’t specifically mention assistant principals, but WAC 392-191A provides that assistant principals are subject to the state mandated evaluation system.

RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(v) further suggests that districts evaluate principals and assistant principals with a comprehensive evaluation annually.

“Due to the importance of instructional leadership and assuring rater agreement among evaluators, particularly those evaluating teacher performance, school districts are encouraged to conduct comprehensive summative evaluations of principal performance on an annual basis.”

While not a requirement, the TPEP Steering Committee strongly encourages districts to consider the implications of using a focused evaluation with principals, especially in the early implementation years.

What happens to the PGO option in 2013–14?2

A district may consider keeping certificated classroom teachers on the former system during the 2013–14 and 2014–15 school years. This includes the short form evaluations as described in RCW 28A.405.100(11). ALL certificated classroom teachers must be on the revised system in 2015–16. At that point, there is no longer a short form or PGO option.

 



Evaluation Components

Where did the revised teacher and principal evaluation criteria come from?

The revised teacher and principal criteria was drafted by the governor’s office and the two primary organizations representing teachers and principals in 2010 as part of E2SSB 6696.

What are the criteria definitions?

As in the existing evaluation system, short paragraphs were crafted to help support the understanding and differentiation of the criteria. In January, 2011 the TPEP pilot districts assisted OSPI and the TPEP Steering Committee in writing the new definitions. The new definitions are embedded in WAC 392-191A.

What is a comprehensive evaluation?

A comprehensive evaluation assesses all eight evaluation criteria and each of the criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. RCW 28A.405.100(12)(a). See the Comprehensive and Focused Evaluation Diagrams for more details.

What is a focused evaluation?

A focused evaluation includes an assessment of one of the eight criteria selected for a performance rating plus professional growth activities specifically linked to the selected criteria. RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(i). See the Comprehensive and Focused Evaluation Diagrams for more details.

What are the OSPI approved instructional and leadership frameworks?

Instructional

Leadership

For more information on the approved instructional and leadership frameworks and their role in the revised evaluation system, visit the Frameworks & Rubrics page.

Which version of the frameworks will OSPI approve for the 2013–14 school year?

The only framework with changes for 2013–14 is the AWSP Leadership Framework, which has now been slightly updated to Version 2.0. Aside from moving to Version 2.0 of the AWSP Leadership Framework, OSPI has determined that Washington will continue using the existing versions of all frameworks through the 2015–16 school year.

What is the OSPI process for “minor modifications and adaptations” to the instructional or leadership frameworks?

ESSB 5895 requires that OSPI

“establish a process for approving minor modifications or adaptations to a preferred instructional framework that may be proposed by a school district.” OSPI will open a Framework Minor Modification/Adaptations process beginning May 15, 2014. OSPI will publish a memo in spring 2014 outlining the process for submitting minor modifications or adaptations to instructional or leadership frameworks.

Districts may add to the critical attributes (Danielson), possible observables (CEL 5D’s) and possible evidence (Marzano and AWSP) established by the framework authors.

Please read TPEP Minor Modification Instructions for more information and instructions.

When do districts need to let OSPI know which framework they’re using?

Districts are not required to inform OSPI of their instructional or leadership selection, but are encouraged to. Districts are required to post their framework choices somewhere on their district website. (RCW 28A.405.100(2)(e)) A list of the framework selections OSPI has on record can be found at http://tpep-wa.org/the-model/framework-and-rubrics/district-framework-selections/.

Do districts need to evaluate teachers on all eight criteria and use all the components within each framework?

OSPI selected the three research-based frameworks as required by law RCW 28A.405.100(2)(e), and have worked closely with the framework authors. OSPI and the TPEP Steering Committee strongly recommend that districts use all evaluation rubrics to judge the performance of the certificated classroom teacher, principal, or assistant principal. Not using the entire framework for the purposes of a comprehensive evaluation or all the components/indicators in a focused evaluation will compromise the validity of the frameworks. In addition, the state is expecting the data provided to OSPI in the summative ratings to use all eight criteria and the entire framework. The data submitted to OSPI would be compromised if districts chose not to use all rubrics in the summative rating of a certificated classroom teacher, principal, or assistant principal.

What is the role of evidence in the revised system?3

Evidence is observed practice, products, or results of the work of a certificated classroom teacher or principal that demonstrates knowledge and skills with respect to the framework and rubric.

Observation: Required for all comprehensive evaluations; for focused evaluations, observation is required

“if the evaluation of the certificated classroom teacher includes an assessment of a criterion that requires observation…”

See WAC 392-191A

For teachers, most framework components are observable either in the classroom or elsewhere in context of their work. When the criterion selected for a Focused evaluation does not relate directly to classroom instruction, it may be more appropriate for the observation to take place in a community setting (criterion 7) or in the course of professional duties (criterion 8). In cases where a classroom observation is not appropriate for gathering evidence for the criterion of focus, documentation of observations can occur after each observation or after a series of observations (RCW 28A.405.100(3)(a).)

New employees must be observed early in the year. RCW 28A.405.100 states that

“New employees shall be observed at least once for a total observation time of thirty minutes during the first ninety calendar days of their employment period.”

Although it is appropriate and useful to conduct a midyear status check, keep in mind there is no summative score provided at the conclusion of that first observation for new employees; summative scoring occurs near the end of the school year when a full picture of performance is available.

Student Growth: Required for all. See WAC 392-191A and summative scoring information. If the criterion selected for a focused evaluation does not contain student growth rubrics, the evaluatee selects student growth goals from criterion 3 or 6 for teachers or criterion 3.5, 5.5, or 8.3 for principals and assistant principals.

Perception Data: Optional local decision. See RCW 28A.405.100(2)(g) and RCW 28A.405.100(6)(g).

Who can evaluate a certificated classroom teacher?

RCW 28A.405.100 states:

“it shall be the responsibility of a principal or his or her designee to evaluate all certificated personnel in his or her school.”

Evaluators must have training on the

“revised systems to maximize rater agreement.”

What happens to the evaluation process when an educator departs in the middle of the school year?4

If the departure is planned, the evaluator and evaluatee should come to mutual agreement about a timeline for completing observations and a summative conference. If not all elements of the framework have adequate evidence to be scored, the reason for any omission should be noted on the summative form.
If the departure is unplanned and it is not possible to complete an evaluation, document the facts.

What do we do with an educator who is hired mid-year?5

Long-term substitutes are not required to be evaluated on the revised system. Local CBAs may provide more specific guidance.
Any educator new to the district and hired on a regular contract is provisional, so must be evaluated using the revised comprehensive format. Local HR policies might address a variety of hiring scenarios. Districts are encouraged to use common sense when hiring in the last quarter of the year.

What about someone who has two or more assignments?6

The framework authors’ advice is to score the preponderance of the evidence. If there is evidence, score what is available. To supplement, a short observation to focus on specific elements could be scheduled and/or the teacher could provide evidence from outside the observation.

 



Student Growth

What is the definition of student growth?

RCW 28A.405.100 defines student growth as the

“change in student achievement between two points in time.”

What measures can be used to determine student growth?7

WAC 392-191A-080 states:

“More than one measure of student growth data must be used in scoring the student growth rubrics.”

Measures include:

  • classroom-based tools
  • school-based tools
  • district-based tools
  • state-based tools

OSPI began publishing Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) in Spring 2013. How will this information impact the teacher or principal evaluation system and what guidance can you give districts about SGPs?

Please read the TPEP Statement on Student Growth Percentiles and OSPI’s Student Growth Percentiles FAQ.

What are the three components of student growth and how they are different for each criterion?

For teachers, there are five components of student growth embedded across criteria three, six, and eight. They are the same state components for each of the approved instructional frameworks. The components are:

SG 3.1 – Establish Student Growth Goals
Refers to individual or subgroups of students (achievement/opportunity gap)
SG 3.2 – Achievement of Student Growth Goals
Refers to individual or subgroups of students (achievement/opportunity gap)
SG 6.1 – Establish Student Growth Goals using Multiple Student Data Elements
Refers to the whole class based on appropriate standards and aligned to school and district goals
SG 6.2 – Achievement of Student Growth Goals
Refers to the whole class based on appropriate standards and aligned to school and district goals
SG 81. – Establish Team Student Growth Goals
Refers to the teacher as part of a grade-level, content area, or other school or district team

For school leaders, there are three components of student growth embedded in criteria three, five, and eight. They are also identical across both of the approved leadership frameworks. The components are:

  • SG 3 – Provides evidence of student growth that results from the school improvement planning process.
  • SG 5 – Provides evidence of student growth of selected teachers.
  • SG 8 – Provides evidence of growth in student learning.

Why is there 8.1 and not 8.2 for teachers?8

SG 8.1 asks a group of teachers to focus together on a set of students for whom they have common responsibility, analyze the learning needs of those students, set a common goal or goals, develop and implement high-quality measures and collectively monitor progress during the year. Teachers can be held individually responsible for active collaboration and for making changes to his/her instruction (SG 8.1) but cannot be held individually responsible for the student growth of others.

How should student growth be evaluated?9

The principal and the teacher should sit down to discuss available evidence that demonstrates progress towards goals. The discussion should be based on the goal(s) set by the teacher and approved by the principal as well as on student work and/or performance that demonstrates progress towards that goal. Some districts have defined “growth for most students” and “high evidence of growth” but the context of each classroom is critical to every decision.

Do student growth goals for teachers need to align with principal goals or the school improvement plan?10

Most importantly, goals must be meaningful and relevant to the teacher. The 6.1 student growth rubric for Distinguished in 6.1 states “These whole classroom goals align to school goal(s).” The principal student growth rubric asks principals to “provide evidence of student growth that result from the school improvement planning process (SG3) and provide evidence of growth in student learning.” While it makes perfect sense that all boats are pulling in the same direction, it is not required that the teacher goals match the principal or school goals unless the bargaining agreement specifies that as a local requirement.

May teachers include summative student learning data (HSPE, MSP) as general trend evidence?11

Yes, if they can show direct responsibility for scores.

How does the federal waiver change Washington’s approach to student growth?12

The Legislature did not pass a bill, so there is no change to TPEP. Washington’s student growth process and rubrics remain the same.

Is there a form to guide a student growth inquiry?13

WAC 392-191A-090 outlines the requirements for the inquiry triggered by a low student growth score on a teacher’s Comprehensive evaluation. WAC 392-191A-180 outlines similar requirements for principals. If there are areas of concern related to the framework, it would make sense for the PD connected to the student growth inquiry to be tied to C3, C6 and C8 for teachers and C3, C5 and C8 for principals. If the framework evidence reveals no issues, but a low student growth score exists, the professional development plan should be related to one or more topics mentioned in that section of the WAC.

What evidence is needed for Criterion 8?14

Criterion 8 is about the collaborative work of professionals. Evidence can be found in staff meetings, department meetings, PLCs, and other points of collaboration. The principal can observe any of those events, or the teacher could provide evidence from events where the principal is not present.

What happens if there is not sufficient evidence to score a component?15

The framework authors’ advice is to score the preponderance of the evidence. If there is evidence, score what is available. To supplement, a short observation to focus on specific elements could be scheduled and/or the teacher could provide evidence from outside the observation.

How do I calculate a summative score?16

A comprehensive evaluation has two scoring steps:

  1. Districts create procedures and practices to establish criterion scores and they are summed equally to create a summative score. Framework rubric scores and student growth rubric scores are included in the calculation. The state’s scoring matrix assigns a corresponding label (Unsatisfactory to Distinguished or 1-4).
  2. Calculate the Student Growth Impact Rating, which is the sum of the five student growth rubrics from criteria 3, 6, and 8 for teachers or criteria 3, 5 and 8 for principals. The Distinguished label would be reduced to Proficient if a low Student Growth Impact Rating exists, and a Student Growth Inquiry would be triggered.

Note: eVAL calculates these simultaneously; others will need to do two calculations.

A focused evaluation has one scoring step. The Final Summative Score is the same as the final score for the criterion that was selected for focus. Criterion scores result from a locally-determined process that includes both framework rubric scores and applicable student growth rubric scores. The Focused evaluation does not have a separate student growth impact rating.

What gets submitted to OSPI after scoring is complete?17

Each district sends in information each fall, with total number of teachers in each summative category. Individual results remain at the district. Each district defines local practices about how and where data should be stored. For districts that use eVAL, all data is retained electronically and can only be accessed by the local district.

What happens if there is not sufficient evidence to score when summative reports are due?18

Attention to management and frequent dialogue through the year should help avoid gaps in the evidence. If gaps are discovered in April, there is still time to use strategies described above. It is a state requirement that each criterion be scored for a Comprehensive evaluation. Skipping criterion scoring is not an option. If the principal has conducted several observations and does not see any evidence for a particular observable component, the absence of that evidence might be evidence in itself. But it is incumbent on both the principal and the teacher to assure that plentiful opportunities have existed before drawing any conclusion about a lack of evidence.

If principals have not been scoring observations during the year, is it permissible to holistically rate the evidence at the end of the year?19

One critical key to the revised system is holistic scoring – looking at all evidence, over time. It is important to NOT make judgments based on one visit or one conversation or one piece of evidence. There is no state expectation that each observation or artifact be scored. It is the collection of evidence that provides information for scoring, not any one item or event.

In a standards-based system, if a student or a teacher or a principal could not do something in the fall, but demonstrates that skill in winter and spring, the fall “score” is not relevant. Looking at the preponderance of evidence reveals its scope and depth, as well as growth over time.

This is a local decision, however, and some districts have rules about averaging in order to obtain a criterion score. Others have contract language about providing a teacher, or a group of teachers such as those who are new, with a summative score mid-year. This is not a state expectation, for the reasons stated above, but is a local decision.

 



Consequences or Outcomes of Evaluation

Is probation triggered in a focused evaluation?

Yes. Teachers who are on a focused evaluation and receive an unsatisfactory rating must be placed on probation. RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(iii) provides that teachers who receive a focused evaluation are to be assigned

“a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating for the focused evaluation”.

RCW 28A.405.100(2)(c) defines

“comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating” as “one of the four summative performance ratings for the evaluation as a whole, which shall be the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating.”

Subsection (2)(c) provides that OSPI has the job of prescribing

“a common method for calculating the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating for each of the preferred instructional frameworks, including for a focused evaluation under subsection (12)….”

The comprehensive summative evaluation performance ratings trigger probation under subsection (4)(a). This requires that teachers on focused evaluations are subject to the statute’s requirements regarding probation.

OSPI advises districts to avoid using the focused evaluation for teachers who are less than proficient during the early years of implementation. Once teachers have been fully transitioned to the revised system, RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(iii) provides that teachers who have

“received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 3 or above in the previous school year are required to complete a focused evaluation“

in the years when a comprehensive is not required. The overall intent of a focused evaluation is professional growth in an area

“benefiting from additional attention.”

 



Provisional Status

What evaluation system is required for a teacher who will be in the third year of provisional status in 2013–14?

Any provisional status teacher is required to be on a comprehensive evaluation using the revised system in the 2013–14 school year.

If a 2013–14 third year provisional status teacher will be given a continuing contract in the 2014–15 school year, what evaluation system is required for the 2014–15 school year?

In the former evaluation system, a teacher was required to have four years of satisfactory long form evaluations before moving to the short form. This section of the law is not applicable once teachers have transitioned to the revised system RCW 28A.405.100(11). Provisional status teachers are required to be evaluated using the revised system in 2013–14. Therefore, this continuing contract teacher can be either on a focused or comprehensive evaluation in 2014–15 as long as they received a proficient or distinguished summative rating in 2013–14. Any certificated classroom teacher who receives lower than a proficient rating on the revised system must be on a comprehensive evaluation the following year. In addition,

“a teacher or principal may be transferred from a focused evaluation to a comprehensive summative evaluation at the request of the teacher or principal, or at the direction of the teacher’s or principal’s evaluator.”

 



eVAL

What is the eVAL management system?

eVAL is web-based system developed and designed by the WEA, ESD 113, and OSPI with input and feedback from the TPEP Steering Committee and pilot sites. The system will allow teachers, principals, and district administrators to coordinate, review, schedule, view, and upload any and all applicable evaluation materials.

What are the security provisions in place regarding eVAL and personnel files?

eVAL is a voluntary management system for the revised certificated teacher and principal evaluation system. It is developed and funded by WEA, ESD 113, and OSPI. In the state of Washington, teacher evaluations are exempt from public dislsure laws. RCW 42.56.230.

There is a secure firewall between the three partnering organizations (WEA, OSPI, and ESD 113) and a district’s eVAL management system. The portal for the eVAL system is the state’s EDS system; however, no evaluation information is accessible to OSPI, WEA, or ESD 113. In addition, the summative rating data that is required by state law is collected through a different survey administered through an application titled “School Employee Evaluation Survey” accessible through the Education Data System (EDS) in the fall by OSPI. For more information on the survey, please read OSPI Bulletin B029-13.

What is the status of the Teachscape contract for including Danielson framework language in eVAL?

OSPI has renewed the one-year agreement with Teachscape for use of the 2011 Framework for Teaching in the eVAL system for 2013–14. This agreement does not allow the use of the 2013 version of the Framework for Teaching within eVAL.

 



Plans for 2014 – 2015

What happens when an evaluator moves to a district with another framework?20

Evaluators must have training on the framework they are currently using – when evaluators move to a district with a framework that is new to them, they need Stage 1 and Stage 2 training on the new framework. ESDs will coordinate instructional framework training; AWSP and LSI will coordinate leadership training.

Is there funding for framework training in 2014-2015?21

TPEP is funded for 2014-15. ESDs will provide regional training on the instructional frameworks that is free to participants. AWSP and LSI will do the same for leadership framework training. OSPI will continue to publish a list of approved framework trainers for districts that want to contract with framework specialists directly.

School districts will have a small allocation for teacher training (approximately $80 per teacher). The funds will be administered through iGrants. OSPI intends to publish a bulletin in May and open iGrant 664 in August. Approved teacher training activities that occur July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 will be reimbursed up to the district’s maximum allocation. More information is available on the Teacher Training Funding webpage.

 


  1. Updated 10/9/2013 

  2. Updated 10/9/2013 

  3. Updated 10/9/2013 

  4. Updated 5/22/2014 

  5. Updated 5/22/2014 

  6. Updated 5/22/2014 

  7. Updated 10/9/2013 

  8. Updated 10/9/2013 

  9. Updated 5/22/2014 

  10. Updated 5/2/2014 

  11. Updated 5/22/2014 

  12. Updated 5/22/2014 

  13. Updated 5/22/20114 

  14. Updated 5/22/2014 

  15. Updated 5/22/2014 

  16. Updated 10/9/2013 

  17. Updated 5/22/2014 

  18. Updated 5/22/2014 

  19. Updated 5/22/2014 

  20. Updated 5/22/2014 

  21. Updated 5/22/2014