State TPEP Teacher Workbook
- Visual Model Diagram
- Revised Criteria & Definitions
- Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements
Anacortes’ Teacher Model
- Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
- Measures & Evidence
- Final Summative Evaluation
- Stakeholder & Community Engagement
- Professional Development
- Tools & Forms
- Contact Us
Anacortes’ Principal Model
- Coming online soon.
State TPEP Teacher Workbook
Revised Teacher Evaluation Criteria: (Defined in RCW)
The Legislature passed E2SSB 6696 and Governor Gregoire signed the bill into law (RCW 28A.405.100) on March 29, 2010. The criteria form the backbone of the new evaluation system. The TPEP districts have used the evaluation criteria language and existing or new instructional frameworks to develop the rubrics. According to the RCW, “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.”
Criteria Definitions: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
Based on feedback from experts and our TPEP districts, we have created definitions for each of the new teacher criterion. Each of the TPEP districts submitted definitions and we synthesized those into one brief sentence. This is intended to delineate the criteria in order to minimize the overlap between the criterion and create more consistency across the state in setting clear evaluation targets for teachers and principals as we move to statewide implementation.
Comprehensive Instructional Framework: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The comprehensive instructional framework (common language/model of instruction) provides districts with a way to talk about instruction that is shared by everyone in the district/ESD. Marzano states that teachers and principals use the instructional framework “to converse about effective teaching, give and receive feedback, collect and act upon data to monitor growth regarding the reasoned use of the strategies, and align professional development needs against the framework.” There are several instructional frameworks being utilized by the TPEP districts. Because the new teacher criteria are unique to Washington, the TPEP districts have aligned the instructional frameworks (and subsequently the rubrics) to the new state criteria.
Rubrics: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The rubrics (based on the instructional frameworks) are the clearly defined continuum that describes unsatisfactory through effective teaching practice based on the 8 teacher criteria. The rubrics should be used to train principals to identify strengths and weaknesses in practice based on clearly defined evidence and measures. These rubrics could take into account the variations of novice to expert teachers.
Measures and Evidence: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The measures and evidence are used to determine the “teacher’s performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.” The measures used in the evaluation system should have strong correlation to the criteria being evaluated. There are four areas under the “measures and evidence” section: classroom observation, teacher self-assessment, student growth data, other measures/evidence. This section should represent the district’s system for determining final summative evaluation score.
Final Summative Evaluation: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
The final summative evaluation is a critical definition in order to ensure consistency across the state as teachers are evaluated and data is submitted in aggregate. In the late fall 8 of the 9 TPEP sites and WASA submitted a summative evaluation statement for each of the 4 tiers. Similar to the standards- based system for students, clear targets for both the distinct criteria and the final summative evaluation will drive principals and teachers to a evaluation system that promotes growth and prevents stagnation.
The TPEP project has been a collaborative process from the beginning. Successful development and ultimately implementation has and will require looking at this process through multiple lenses. Please include any documents your district/consortium has used to incorporate authentic stakeholder engagement through the pilot development year. (This will include the norms and protocols you used in setting up your district’s TPEP steering committee).
Communication is a key component to successful development and implementation of the new evaluation system. The collaborative approach at both the state and district levels is critical. Include the plan and documents that would explain your communication process.
Looking at this new evaluation system as a process in continuous improvement, professional development to train the staff involved in the pilot will be key. Please include your district’s plan for ongoing professional development for your teachers, principals and district administrators involved in the 2011-12 TPEP pilot year.
Many aspects of the new teacher and principal evaluation system will depend heavily on the acquisition and use of data. Include a description of resources your district already uses relating to instructional data and any additional resources you will need to implement the new evaluation system. (Include any technology, databases related to teacher, student, and/or principal data).
Forms & Tools:
Many parts of the new evaluation system will require changing the forms and tools used in the evaluation process. Please include and forms and tools developed for the new evaluation process. (Please note which ones are electronic and which are paper-based). Examples: Principal observation tools (pre, during and post), MOUs, artifact collection and observation tools, parent or student surveys, etc.)
Visual Model Diagram
Revised Criteria & Definitions
|Revised Teacher Evaluation Criteria||Criteria Definitions|
|1.||Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement.||PLANNING: The teacher sets high expectations through instructional planning and reflection aligned to content knowledge and standards. Instructional planning is demonstrated in the classroom through student engagement that leads to an impact on student learning.|
|2.||Demonstrating effective teaching practices.||INSTRUCTION: The teacher uses research-based instructional practices to meet the needs of ALL students and bases those practices on a commitment to high standards and meeting the developmental needs of students.|
|3.||Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs.||REFLECTION: The teacher acquires and uses specific knowledge about students’ individual intellectual and social development and uses that knowledge to advance student learning.|
|4.||Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum.||CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: The teacher uses content area knowledge and pedagogy to design and deliver curricula, instruction and assessment to impact student learning.|
|5.||Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment.||CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT: The teacher fosters and manages a safe, culturally sensitive and inclusive learning environment that takes into account: physical, emotional and intellectual well-being.|
|6.||Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning.||ASSESSMENT: The teacher uses multiple data elements (both formative and summative) for planning, instruction and assessment to foster student achievement.|
|7.||Communicating and collaborating with parents and school community.||PARENTS AND COMMUNITY: The teacher communicates and collaborates with students, parents and all educational stakeholders in an ethical and professional manner to promote student learning.|
|8.||Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving.||PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE: The teacher participates collaboratively in the educational community to improve instruction, advance the knowledge and practice of teaching as a profession, and ultimately impact student learning.|
Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements
These statements support teacher self-reflection, inform and structure professional conversations, and suggest areas for further professional growth. Note:The changes below are suggestions from Anacortes.
|1||Professional practice at Level 1 shows evidence of not understanding the concepts underlying individual components of the criteria. This level of practice is ineffective and inefficient and may represent practice that is harmful to student learning progress, professional learning environment, or individual teaching practice. This level requires immediate interventionand specific district support. Failure to show adequate growth will result in dismissal.|
|2||Professional practice at Level 2 shows a developing understanding of the knowledge and skills of the criteria required to practice, but performance is inconsistent over a period of time due to a variety of issues
|3||Professional practice at Level 3 shows evidence of thorough knowledge of all aspects of the profession. This is successful, accomplished, professional, and effective practice. Teachers at this level thoroughly know academic content, curriculum design/development, their students, and a wide range of professional resources. Teaching at this level utilizes a broad repertoire of strategies and activities to support student learning. At this level, teaching is strengthened and expanded through purposeful, collaborative sharing and learning with colleagues as well as ongoing self-reflection and professional improvement.
|4||Professional practice at the Level 4 is that of a master professional whose practices operate at a qualitatively different level from those of other professional peers. Teaching practice at this level shows evidence of learning that is student directed, where students assume responsibility for their learning by making substantial contributions throughout the instructional process. Ongoing, reflective teaching is demonstrated through the highest level of expertise related
Adapted from “Framework for Teaching Levels of Performance Sample Operational Definitions” created by Pam Rosa, Danielson Group Associate.
Anacortes’ Teacher Model
A team of 12 teachers, principals, administrators and association representatives is working to develop, pilot and implement teacher and principal evaluation instruments that are aligned with new state standards, highlight best teaching and leadership practices and use a four point rubric. The evaluation tools will support professional growth and promote student achievement.
Evaluation Pilot Goal
To create comprehensive, systems-linked evaluation models for both principals and teachers that include a 4-tiered rating system, meets the 8 new criteria, uses student assessment and multiple measures where applicable, and ideally function as tools to help improve teaching and learning.
Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
✓ 5-D (Center for Educational Leadership)
❒ Other (Teaching as Leadership, National Board, Star Protocol, BERC, etc)
Anacortes has chosen to use the University of Washington’s Center for Educational Leadership model. The Five Dimensions of Teaching and Learning is one the strongest instructional frameworks anywhere in the country. Our team chose the 5D model for several compelling reasons:
- The model was originally created as a principal audit tool for looking at effective teacher practice
- There is a tremendous amount of research behind the model and has shown high levels of inter‐rater reliability
- The CEL mission is to have the tool work in targeted ways to close the achievement gap.
- Anacortes has a long relationship with CEL and the instructional model dating back to 2008.
- There have been several teacher cohorts who have substantial training on the model.
- After our September listening campaign, district teachers gave a clear message that 5D resonated with their
classroom experience and was a valuable tool for looking at pedagogy.
- CEL already has a large footprint across the state (44 districts).
- CEL is a non‐profit university and research organization.
The Anacortes rubrics reflects our core belief of designing a teacher growth model and are developed in partnership with the University of Washington Center for Educational Leadership (CEL). The current rubrics are aligned to the 5 Dimensions model. The alignment to the 8 State Criteria has been done multiple times during the year and the final alignment to the 8 State Criteria will be completed by the WASA/AWSP conference. Other expert writings considered in the development are Charlotte Danielson and James Stronge. NBTPS rubrics and Pro Cert rubrics were considered.
Measures & Evidence
|8 State Criteria||Self-Assessment||Other Measures & Evidence||Student Growth Data|
|Principal Observation Artifacts:
||Possible tools include:
||Possible tools to demonstrate student growth include:
Final Summative Evaluation
System for Determining Final Summative Teacher Rating
❒ Proficiency Progression Model: This model requires choosing one or more criteria that are most critical for the proficiency the first year of implementation/teaching. Subsequent years would stair step proficiency requirements by adding criteria. This model can be combined with other models.
❒ Qualitative/Holistic Model: This model requires collection of artifacts and observation by the evaluator and holistically deriving a qualitative rating on the 4 tiers for each teacher.
❒ Mathematical Formula Model: This model uses a mathematical algorithm to add up each component and divide by the number of indicators/components to drive out a number for each criterion. The same process is completed for the criteria to finalize a summative rating.
❒ Percentage and/or Points Model: This model assigns percentages or points to each form of evidence (Example: Observations are worth 65%, Artifacts 15%, Impacts on Student Learning 15% and self reflection/reflection 5%)
❒ Raw Score Model: This model uses appropriate evidence (observation, artifacts, impact on student learning, self-assessment) to derive a raw score for each criterion. Those criterion scores are then added up to create a summative raw score. Summative rating is defined through a Raw Score Range (Example: Level 1: 8-13 Level 2: 14-19 Level 3: 20-26 Level 4: 27-32)
❒ Raw Score/Conditions Hybrid Model: This model combines the above raw score model with certain district level conditions (example: cannot be overall proficient with one unsatisfactory criterion score or unsatisfactory in safety criterion automatic overall unsatisfactory)
❒ Conditions Model: This model puts certain evaluation conditions depending on the contract status of the teacher.
❒ Other: Many of the above models can be combined or altered to fit the needs of your district evaluation model.
In Anacortes, multiple models will be used during the pilot implementation year to collect data and determine effectiveness.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Our team has made it a priority to involve multiple groups in our process. We have conducted on‐site visits to all schools to share information with staff. Our Core team includes teachers and principals from every building. We have invited other teachers to critique the evaluation tool. We have intentionally hosted a variety of organizations for the purpose of hearing their thoughts and concerns about teacher evaluation and measures of effectiveness. We have a Parent Focus Group. Our School Board is part of the TPEP distribution list for all e‐mail communications. We have already identified numerous district teachers who are interested in taking a more active role (Home Team) during the implementation year (2011‐2012).
From the beginning, Anacortes has made communication a top priority for this process. We began by creating a half‐time staff release person for the purpose of both in and out of district communication. We used a 1:1 listening campaign in September to collect baseline information from staff about evaluation. We also collected information from an on‐line survey. In total we have information from about 60% of staff. We have created a TPEP link on our district website with a regularly updated blog component. We have conducted 3 on‐site visits and TPEP workshop days at each building. We have hosted a Parent/Community Focus Meeting, addressed the School Board and presented to the state legislature, community forums and other districts. Produced a DVD to disseminate a consistent message to all staff regarding pertinent teacher questions.
For more information on Anacortes’ communications and outreach, please view the district’s TPEP site.
The professional development plan is still in development. At this time the goal is to include; further training on the instructional framework, specific training for evaluators and lead teachers, mentor program for some teachers, training on the self‐assessment tools, training for formative assessments and other student growth measures, utilizing PLT (district provided professional learning time), and working with psychometricians to better develop a summative scoring methodologies.
Student growth measures will use data. Specifics for different methodologies for student growth data will be tried and revised during the implementation pilot year.
Tools & Forms
Draft Raw Score and Holistic Hybrid Model for Principal Observation and Evaluation (PDF) – beginning draft of using the raw score and holistic hybrid for determining the 8 State Criteria Measure
Five Pathways to Teacher Success (PDF) – draft of different pathways teachers may be on to determine the summative evaluation score.
If you have questions about the Anacortes model, please contact:
Superintendent Chris Borgen – firstname.lastname@example.org
AEA President Jennie Beltramini – email@example.com
Principal Tara Dowd – firstname.lastname@example.org