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
Kennewick’s Teacher Model
- Introduction
- Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
- Criteria Summary
- Rubrics
- Measures & Evidence
- Final Summative Evaluation
- Stakeholder & Community Engagement
- Communication
- Professional Development
- Data
- Tools & Forms
- Contact Us
State TPEP Principal Workbook
- Glossary
- Visual Model Diagram
- Revised Criteria & Definitions
- Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements
Kennewick’s Principal Model
- Leadership Framework
- Principal Rubrics
- Measures & Evidence
- System for Determining Final Summative Principal Rating
- Stakeholder & Community Engagement
- Communication
- 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” created by Pam Rosa, Danielson Group Associate.
Kennewick’s Teacher Model
Introduction
This notebook is the result of the first year of work by the Kennewick School District staff on the Teacher Principal Evaluation project.
We are very proud of what we have accomplished. Our process of evaluation is focused on providing a model that will clearly define a path of professional growth.
We do that in part through a self-assessment and goal setting process that identifies specific areas of emphasis. For most of our employees this will be a strengths based model working to build on the successes of our staff. The eight evaluation criteria and the corresponding rubrics give the evaluate and evaluator a global look at the work the of the teacher and principal. Our system of evidence helps us to identify important elements of that work to focus on.
This project has caused us to carefully analyze the characteristics of an effective teacher and effective principal. We believe our rubrics reflect that thinking in a very practical sense.
We have designed a process of evaluation for teachers and principals that involve self-assessment, specific goal setting related to the self-assessment, and a summative evaluation that is related to progress on those goals. This process will be strong influence in the professional growth of our staff.
We pride ourselves on the work of our teams. Throughout the process we stressed the idea of a collaborative process that will lead to the professional growth of or certificated staff. As a result of that collaboration we have a process that is strongly supported by our work teams.
Within this introduction are explanations of the sections and definitions of terms used in the notebook.
Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
✓ Danielson
✓ Marzano
❒ 5-D (Center for Educational Leadership)
❒ McRel
✓ Other (Teaching as Leadership, National Board, Star Protocol, BERC, etc)
Kennewick’s instructional framework model is the strength of our Teacher and Principal Evaluation. The Kennewick School District has been developing a clear set of expectations and a common language of instruction. We began working on Instructional Framework in 2002 when our district Cabinet members and Kennewick Education Association President attended the Harvard Institute for School Leadership. At this time we began our work with Purpose, Engagement, Rigor and Results (PERR) as a model for instruction. These elements were taken from our work at Harvard and feedback we received from Tony Wagner, Elaine Fink, and Tony Alvarado who have done similar work in the New York City Public Schools, and have been to Kennewick to evaluate and improve our instructional design. Our model evolved further as we incorporated the work of Robert Marzano, Phillip Schlecty and others. Marzano’s work helped us refine our frameworks regarding Purpose and Rigor; Schlecty’s research helped us deepen our understanding of Engagement.
In 2002, the Kennewick School District began conducting “Instructional Conferences” for teachers and administrators. These conferences, which occur four times per year, train approximately 200 teachers in the PERR model. At these conferences, the participants view grade or subject specific videos looking for elements of Purpose, Engagement, Rigor and Results in the lessons of Kennewick teachers. Additionally, we analyze the use of PERR and specific classroom applications. We currently have more than 50 video tapes of our teachers, many of which are available on our internal website for teachers and administrators to use for their building or individual professional development.
For this project, we found it was essential to integrate the eight state criteria into our instructional model. In analyzing other research based instructional frameworks we discovered that, while the language is different, the concepts of good teaching are the same. Over the last decade, we have built a strong foundation through professional development with administrators and teachers around our framework of Purpose, Engagement, Rigor and Results. This consistency of language has helped to develop confidence in our instructional model district-wide. We must retain this common language as we continue our work on improving instruction.
As we began to integrate the eight state criteria into our instructional framework, we discovered that a hybrid of Charlotte Danielson’s work and the Four D’s provided the structure necessary to organize our thinking. We identified four broad instructional domains:
- Instructional Skill
- Classroom Management
- Collaborative and Collegial Practices
- Communication
The following instructional design is the result of a thoughtful process that provides a comprehensive model of instruction that speaks to the essential elements of an effective classroom.
The next step was to plug in the eight criteria from the state our purpose engagement rigor and results model. In the example below the four domains are in red, the eight criteria from the state are in bold, underlined print, and Kennewick elements are in blue. The titles of rubric criteria are bulleted.
Rubrics
Kennewick’s rubrics reflect the eight criteria from the state, and incorporate our PERR instructional model. The rubrics describe the detail around quality instruction, teaching and administrative practices.
Both the teacher and principal evaluation committees were comprised of teachers, principals, and central office administration. The committees worked diligently to create consistent language throughout the evaluation documents.
We have created examples of evidence for each component of the rubrics. The examples of evidence provide a clear understanding of how the rubrics apply to teaching and administrative practices.
The rubrics are the foundation to all the processes and forms that are included in this document. We intend to use them as a springboard for continuously improving instruction.
Measures & Evidence
| Self-Assessment & Goals | The Observation | Other Measures & Evidence | Student Growth Data |
| …is a key element of the Teacher and Principal evaluation process.
…is completed by both evaluator and evaluatee prior to the first pre- observation conference. …prompts the evaluatee to reflect on his/her skills and knowledge. …is used to create a reflective dialogue between evaluator and evaluatee, leading to the creation of specific goals for the evaluation cycle. |
…focuses on goals/skills discussed during the pre- conference dialogue.
…is based on the skills and knowledge as described in the rubrics. …is one of the pieces of evidence we collect. …frequency meets the requirements of state law. |
…have been created for the eight criteria in the teacher and principal evaluation. …will reflect a wide range of skills and knowledge.
…are embedded in the goal setting process and are matched to specific goals. …provides the evaluatee an opportunity to present information not seen during an observation. |
…can be formative or summative assessment related directly to instruction and curriculum.
…should direct ongoing instruction and can be used to modify lessons. …is part of evidence collected to show student learning between two points in time. …will be used to focus professional development. |
View all the measures & evidence (PDF).
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.
Please provide any explanation or context needed for the model(s) used: For our model we selected the Raw Score/Conditions Hybrid Model. We thought it was critical there was a range of scores to reflect performance and to allow for individual variations. This model is also more objective, and is easier to communicate across the school system. By using adding the conditions we are able to define what is important and to define levels of performance more accurately
Click here to view Kennewick’s Teacher Evaluation Processes Summary (PDF).
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
The Kennewick School District, the Kennewick Administrators’ Association and the Kennewick Education Association has a history of a strong, positive relationship. As a result of this relationship, we jointly decided to apply for the pilot. Once approved for the pilot, all parties have been equally engaged.
We have a Steering Committee that focuses the work and sets overall goals and objectives for the evaluation pilot, as well as communicate with other pilot districts and OSPI. There are two separate groups, the members of which were chosen by their respective organizations for their listening, communicating and problem-solving skills, along with their proven instructional and/or administrative skills. One committee is developing the teacher evaluation process, and the other is developing the principal evaluation process. Each committee is comprised of approximately equal representation from all three groups. Each committee has a set of norms and protocols. We rarely, if ever, vote on issues, preferring instead to reach consensus. We focus on having open and candid discussions and finding common ground on issues.
Click here to view Kennewick’s Community and Stakeholder documentation (PDF).
Communication
As we have been developing our communications plan, we have clearly defined our message. Overall, the new evaluation process will function as a tool to improve teaching, learning, and the skills of our principals. Secondly, we have highlighted four areas where our new system differs from the old.
- The process will include a 4-tiered rubric system.
- There are 8 new evaluation criteria.
- Multiple types of evidence will be used where applicable.
- The rubric describes performance along a continuum.
In the first year we have focused on developing an awareness of the project. To start the year, the District and KEA jointly presented to the School Board, building principals, and the Association’s Representative Assembly to kick off the work. In addition, the committee has had on-going communication at the building level, where two formal presentations given by principals, building reps, and members of the committee have occurred. The first presentation was a project overview. A copy of that presentation is included. The second was designed to get feedback on the rubric outline, keep our staff informed and raise awareness for pilot participation. A copy of the feedback forms are included below. Similar presentations have been given to principals.
The Kennewick Education Association continues to update their membership via regular monthly meetings and weekly newsletters.
Lastly, the District is developing an internal website that employees may access for information, make comments and ask questions about the pilot project. Eventually, all forms and rubrics will be available on this site for staff review.
There are several additional opportunities to communicate with stakeholder groups planned in the near future:
- On May 26, 2011, a meeting will be held to provide information regarding the pilot process for teachers and principals. Subsequent to that meeting, teams may apply for pilot participation.
- August 25, 2011, at a District professional development day, a presentation focusing on the evaluation process will occur.
- September 2011, Kennewick School District parents will have a chance to review the outline of the teacher and principal rubrics.
Click here to view Kennewick’s communication documentation (PDF).
Professional Development
Kennewick’s staff development plan focuses initially on the training of pilot participants. For those involved in the pilot, we have a one-day training set aside to familiarize principals with the principal evaluation, and a one-day training for teachers and principals involved in the teacher evaluation pilot. Our August training focuses on:
- Process
- Forms
- Rubrics
- Self-Assessment
- Goal Setting
At the training we will practice each of the processes, carefully examine the rubrics, and review the examples of evidence. After each event, e.g. goal setting, the pilot participants will assemble to evaluate the forms and processes related to that event.
Data
The Kennewick School District is data rich. We pride ourselves on the use of a variety of data to analyze student progress on the school and district level. This includes twelve years of longitudinal data on schools and individual students. We have a student assessment system that assesses students each year, Kindergarten through 10th grade. This data is communicated yearly at the district and building level. At the building level, school improvement goals and professional development plans are developed based on the student data.
We have had an independent analysis of our state assessment data that was used to identify our strengths and areas of improvement for the District. The Board has carefully reviewed the data to help develop the District’s Strategic Plan.
We have carefully considered the use of data in the Teacher and Principal evaluation system. In order to promote professional growth in our teaching and administrative staff, we are looking for ways to focus on a variety of regularly scheduled, formative assessments that examine progress in the classroom over time.
In this evaluation process the use of evidence is a key part of our data system. The examples of evidence we have generated for both the teacher and principal evaluation provide a rich source of data teachers and principals may use to demonstrate progress toward their goals.
Click here to view Kennewick’s examples of evidence used in our data system (PDF)
Tools & Forms
Professional improvement is the result of focused, strategic work. We believe we have developed a process to help our teachers and principals focus on specific areas of improvement. Kennewick’s process begins with a self-assessment of skills contained in the rubric work and concludes with a summative evaluation.
The self-assessment helps the evaluator and evaluatee jointly identify areas of growth. The next step in the process is goal-setting based on the self-assessment, previous evaluations, and the dialogue between the evaluator and evaluatee. The goal setting is supported through a clear identification of evidence needed to achieve the goal(s). Conferences take place throughout the year to discuss progress toward the goal(s) and to determine what supports are necessary for continued improvement.
In the final evaluation conference, the evaluator and evaluatee reflect on progress toward goals, while considering the eight criteria, and a summative score is given. The evaluation process for the following year will be determined at this conference. The forms for this process are attached.
Click here to view Kennewick’s tools & forms (PDF).
Contact Information
If you have questions about Kennewick’s model, please contact Greg Fancher (greg.fancher@ksd.org) at (509) 222-5003.
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
Revised Principal Criteria & Kennewick Definitions
| Revised Principal Evaluation Criteria | ||
| 1. | Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff. | Influence, establish and sustain a school culture conducive to continuous improvement for students and staff. |
| 2. | Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap. | Demonstrate an overt commitment to closing the achievement gap as a result of meeting the previous criteria. Because closing the achievement gap is one of the intended outcomes of the seven criteria, the breakout of this category looks different from the others. |
| 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> | Lead the development, implementation and evaluation of the data driven plan for improvement of student achievement. |
| 4. | Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment with state and local district learning goals. | Assist instructional staff in aligning curriculum instruction and assessment with state and local learning goals. |
| 5. | Monitoring, assisting, and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices. | Monitor, assist and evaluate staff implementation of the school improvement plan, effective instruction and assessment practices. |
| 6. | Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities. | Manage human and fiscal resources to accomplish student achievement goals. |
| 7. | Partnering with the school community to promote student learning. | Communicate and partner with school community members to promote student learning. |
| 8. | Providing for school safety. | Lead the development and annual update of a comprehensive safe schools plan that includes prevention, intervention, crisis response and recovery. |
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.
Kennewick’s Principal Evaluation Model
Leadership Framework
Please provide the explanation of how you’ve used the AWSP document (PDF) (updated 3/8/12 with rubrics) and/or other resources in developing your principal evaluation model:
We used the AWSP document as the core of our work. We used it extensively combined with other leadership resources such as;
- Self-Assessment of Principal Responsibilities
- Extraordinary Leader (Zenger & Folkman)
- Good to Great (Collins)
- Theories of Organizational Leadership (Heifetz, DuFour, etc.)
- Culture of Successful Organizations (Lencioni)
- Habits of Successful Leadership (Covey)
Rubrics
- Had an extensive group of stakeholders offering input on the rubrics (principals from all 3 levels, teachers and central office)
- One of the takeaways was that teachers did not know that principals were evaluated much less what they were evaluated on.
- The tool is very comprehensive and still does not cover the vast responsibilities of the principal.
- One of the key ideas is that a rating of a “4” is extremely difficult to earn.
- We emphasized the difference between a “2” and a “3” is the consistency of the element.
- To establish relevancy we provided examples of evidence and measures wherever possible
Measures & Evidence
| School-Based Observation | Self-Assessment | Other Measures & Evidence | Student Growth Data |
| Administrator and supervisor participate in monthly conversations and building visits.
Artifacts will be used during reflective conversations during monthly visits. (see evidence sheet for further examples). |
Administrator will complete a self-assessment parallel with supervisor in identifying areas of strength and growth. (Attachment 2 (PDF))
Self-Assessment will be used to write goal statement that will be the basis of the evaluation for the year. (Attachment 3 (PDF)) Reflective dialogue based on the criteria is a key element of growth. Surveys of stakeholders will offer insight into building culture. Focus Groups will be used to provide insight into school issues. |
Attached is our evidence sheet in draft form (PDF). | Heavy reliance on school improvement plans for this category. Data will personalized for each buildings goals; grade distribution patterns, student achievement on standardized tests (MAP, MSP, HSPE/EOC), college readiness, course taking patterns, student attrition trends, graduation rate, DIBELS, etc. |
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.
The conditions in the Raw/Score Hybrid model are a discussion point in ongoing contract negotiations as the district and the association work collaboratively.
Click here to view Kennewick’s Summative Evaluation Worksheet (PDF).
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
View documentation in the community and stakeholder engagement teacher section.
Communication
View documentation in the teacher communication section.
Tools & Forms
Principal Self-Assessment (PDF)
Principal Samples of Evidence Rubric (PDF)
Principal Evaluation Criteria (PDF)
Building Administrator Goal Development Form (PDF)
Principal Summative Evaluation Worksheet (PDF)
Evaluation Timeline (PDF)
Contact Information
If you have questions about Kennewick’s model, please contact Greg Fancher (greg.fancher@ksd.org) at (509) 222-5003.