Right-click to download the video or click here to view or subscribe in iTunes.
State TPEP Teacher Workbook
- Glossary
- Visual Model Diagram
- Revised Criteria & Definitions
- Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements
ESD 101 Consortium’s Teacher Model
- Introduction
- Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
- Rubrics
- Measures & Evidence
- Final Summative Evaluation
- Stakeholder & Community Engagement
- Communication
- Professional Development
- Data
- Tools & Forms
- Contact Us
State TPEP Teacher Workbook
ESD 101 Consortium’s Principal Model
- System for Determining Final Summative Principal Rating
- Professional Development
- Tools & Forms
- Contact Us
State TPEP Teacher Workbook
Glossary
The What
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 How
Stakeholder Engagement:
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:
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.
Professional Development:
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.
Data:
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.
| 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 |
| 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 lack of experience, expertise, and/or commitment. This level may be considered minimally competent for teachers early in their careers but insufficient for more experienced teachers. This level requires specific support. |
| 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 and commitment to all students’ learning, challenging professional growth, and collaborative leadership. |
Adapted from “Framework for Teaching Levels of Performance Sample Operational Definitions (PDF)” created by Pam Rosa, Danielson Group Associate.
Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
✓ Danielson
❒ Marzano
❒ 5-D (Center for Educational Leadership)
❒ McRel
❒ Other (Teaching as Leadership, National Board, Star Protocol, BERC, etc)
- As a consortium, we engaged in extensive, intense conversations regarding our understandings of what constitutes quality teaching. We reviewed research literature from other sources as you listed above. Ultimately, this was a profound professional learning experience for all those involved.
- We arrived at using the Danielson Framework for Teaching after hearing her speak, understanding the research base underpinning her work, and our own levels of understanding that came as a result of our months of discussion.
- Through our completion of a “crosswalk document”, although formatted differently, the Danielson Framework appears to match the 8 criteria from legislative language. The model is easier to understand than other models we reviewed and/or tried to create on our own.
- Two domains are evidence‐based and two are observation‐based.
Learn more about Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching.
Rubrics
The rubrics are based on the 4 domains and component levels of the Framework for Teaching.
We initially decided to use numbers to “name” our four tiers but moved away from that decision, not only because of adopting the Danielson Framework, but also because we were fearful that people would not be able to resist the temptation to arrive at an average of the individual scores.
Learn more about the Danielson framework and rubrics.
Measures & Evidence
| Observation | Self-Assessment | Other Measures & Evidence | Student Growth Data |
| Forms for observation will include: pre and post observation and evidence-gathering in all domains. | Guiding questions for reflection and self-assessment. | For each domain, possible sources of evidence are included.
Do not want teachers developing portfolios. |
Student growth is based on the use of multiple forms of student data to inform instruction. May include: MAP, DIBELS,CBAs, MSP, and HSPE.
Much discussion continues regarding actual growth/increased student learning. Wellpinit, as a MERIT school, will have identified its student growth measures. |
View documentation in the Tools & Forms section.
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.
View the following documents related to the final summative evaluation:
- Teacher Summative Evaluation Rating Options (PDF)
- Summative Evaluation for Teachers (PDF)
- Teacher Evaluation Process (PDF)
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
The NEWESD 101 Consortium has had an additional level of a stakeholder plan. Our structure includes a steering committee (7 members and a consultant) and the work group (approximately 20 people on the average) – each meets monthly. Each district has involved various people in their community. They bring to the full work group the feedback from their discussions “back home”.
Communication
Each district has the responsibility to communicate with the various stakeholders in their school community. Districts have utilized different means for communication that have included staff and community meetings, newsletter, and school board communication. The consortium has presented to a number of audiences regarding their work as a project participant.
Professional Development
Our professional development plan is now taking form. Teachers in the pilot, along with administrators, will be provided with an overview of the new teacher evaluation legislation, the criteria, the tiers, etc as well as build an in‐depth understanding of the Danielson Framework for Teaching. Professional development for the principals will be two‐fold – becoming familiar with their own revised evaluation instrument but how to observe, gather evidence, engage in professional conversations, etc.
Data
(No details provided)
Tools & Forms
View some of the Consortium’s tools & forms:
- Self-Assessment of Practice (22 Components) (PDF)
- Interview Protocol for Pre-Conference (PDF)
- 12 Components of Focus (PDF)
- Annual Evaluation (PDF)
- Examples of Evidence and Artifacts (PDF)
- Evidence Gathering (PDF)
- Informal Observation Evidence Gathering Document (PDF)
- Formal Observation Summary (PDF)
- Formal Classroom Observation (PDF)
Contact Information
If you have questions about the NEWESD 101 Consortium’s model, please contact:
Helene Paroff
Assistant Superintendent, NEWESD 101
(509) 789-3539
State TPEP Principal Workbook
Glossary
The What
Revised Principal Evaluation Criteria: (Defined in RCW 28A.405.100)
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 resources such as AWSP’s document “Evaluating Principal Leadership in a Performance-Based School” to develop the rubrics. According to the RCW, “the four-level rating system used to evaluate the principal 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)
The Criteria Definitions for the state’s principal criteria are being developed by AWSP and will be available soon. The research-based definitions are an extension of the AWSP document “Evaluating Principal Leadership in a Performance-Based School.”
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 principal’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: observation, perception data, student achievement growth data, and 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 that increases consistency across the state as principals are evaluated and data is submitted in aggregate. Similar to the standards-based system for students, clear targets for both the distinct criteria and the final summative evaluation will drive districts to and evaluation system that promotes growth and prevents stagnation.
The How
Stakeholder Engagement:
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:
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.
Professional Development:
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.
Data:
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: Observation protocols (pre, during and post), MOUs, artifact collection and observation tools, parent or student surveys, etc.)
Visual Model Diagram
AWSP Summative Principal Ratings
Below are two approaches to explaining the summative evaluation levels for principals. Each combines in some way the scores of the state’s eight principal evaluation criteria and the school’s student achievement data (or data from other agreed upon annual school goals).
Norm’s Example
Norm is a famous principal from years past. He tends to see things (and people) in terms of how close to, or far away from, normal they are. Norm-referenced tests were named after him. Norm looked at this task through the lens of comparison—that is, comparing principals or schools to each other. His proposal reflects this bias and thus limits the number of principals who can achieve a level-four rating. Norm helped Kim Marshall and Anacortes develop their descriptions.
Level 1 – Unsatisfactory: A first-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are relatively low, and whose student achievement data show no growth, or relatively limited growth compared to other schools. There will likely be a few “unsatisfactory” principals each year in most districts.
Level 2 – Emerging: A second-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria show some deficiencies, and whose student achievement growth data are acceptable but not stellar. Or, a second-level principal is one whose ratings from the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement data show no growth or limited growth compared to other schools.
Level 3 – Effective: A third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are strong, but whose student achievement growth data are only acceptable. Or, a third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement growth data are strong compared to other schools.
Level 4 – Distinguished: A fourth-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are high compared to other principals, and whose student achievement growth data are strong, as compared to data from other schools. There will likely be a few “distinguished” principals each year.
Stan’s Example
Stan is a retired distinguished principal who determines value by using a set of standards, rather than comparing people to each other. In fact, Stan’s name is short for his birth name, “Standard” (not “Stanley”… strange parents). Stan’s proposal reflects the philosophy that all individuals are capable of gaining proficiency in all eight evaluative criteria, and thus allows for an unlimited number of principals to achieve a level-four rating. Stan helped North Thurston, Kennewick, North Mason and the Consortium develop their descriptions.
Level 1 – Unsatisfactory: A first-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are low, and whose student achievement data show limited or no growth. There may be no “unsatisfactory” principals each year, or there may be many.
Level 2 – Emerging: A second-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria show some deficiencies, and whose student achievement growth data are acceptable but not stellar. Or, a second-level principal is one whose ratings from the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement data show limited or no growth.
Level 3 – Effective: A third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are strong, but whose student achievement growth data are only acceptable. Or, a third-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are acceptable, but whose student achievement growth data are strong.
Level 4 – Distinguished: A fourth-level principal is one whose ratings in the eight evaluative criteria are strong, and whose student achievement growth data are strong. There may be no “distinguished” principals each year, or there may be many.
Revised Principal Criteria
| Revised Principal Evaluation Criteria | |
| 1. | Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff. |
| 2. | Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap. |
| 3. | Leading the development, implementation, and evaluation of a data-driven plan for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements./font> |
| 4. | Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment with state and local district learning goals. |
| 5. | Monitoring, assisting, and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices. |
| 6. | Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities. |
| 7. | Partnering with the school community to promote student learning. |
| 8. | Providing for school safety. |
ESD 101 Consortium Principal Model
System for Determining Final Summative Principal 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.
Principal Summative Evaluation Statement (PDF)
Professional Development
Principal Professional Development Plan (PDF)
Tools & Forms
Annual Framework of Practice Performance Goal Setting (PDF)
Basic Principal Evaluation Assumptions (PDF)
Evaluation Program Feedback Plan (PDF)
Evaluation System Process Timelines (PDF)
Principal Examples Evidence Artifacts (PDF)
Principal Framework of Practice (PDF)
Contact Information
If you have questions about the NEWESD 101 Consortium’s model, please contact:
Helene Paroff
Assistant Superintendent, NEWESD 101
(509) 789-3539