Right-click to download 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
North Thurston’s Teacher Model
- Introduction
- Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
- Rubrics
- Measures & Evidence
- Final Summative Evaluation
- Stakeholder & Community Engagement
- Communication
- Professional Development
- Data
- Tools & Forms
- Contact Us
North Thurston’s Principal Model
- Coming online soon.
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 harmful to student learning progress, professional learning environment, or individual teaching practice. This level requires immediate intervention. |
| 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.
North Thurston’s Teacher Model
Introduction
The primary goal of this project is to improve our system of evaluation for teachers and principals through the use of research-based tools and processes that promote individual professional growth. We are developing an evaluation model that requires systemic commitment to professional inquiry, self-reflection, and performance analysis focused on the ultimate goal of continuous improvements to teaching and learning in our student-centered district.
Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
✓ Danielson
❒ Marzano
❒ 5-D (Center for Educational Leadership)
❒ McRel
❒ Other (Teaching as Leadership, National Board, Star Protocol, BERC, etc)
Our team studied a significant number of teacher evaluation models used around our state and nation as we initially engaged in the work of creating an evaluation system that would align with the beliefs, values, and initiatives shared by our school community. As the result of our study of teacher evaluation and the body of research on this topic, we chose to adopt Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching as the instructional and evaluative framework that we will pilot next year. Danielson’s framework is the ideal choice for North Thurston Public Schools because it is supported by research and consistent with the educational best practices that have characterized our district’s professional development and strategic planning for the past decade.
Learn more about Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching.
Rubrics
Learn more about the Danielson framework and rubrics.
Measures & Evidence
| Self-Assessment & Goals | The Observation | Other Measures & Evidence | Student Growth Data |
| See NTPS evaluation cycle PDF | See NTPS evaluation cycle PDF | See NTPS evaluation cycle PDF | See NTPS evaluation cycle PDF |
View North Thurston’s Evaluation Cycle Packet (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: See NTPS evaluation cycle (PDF).
Click here to view North Thurston’s Teacher Evaluation Processes Summary (PDF).
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
At the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, the NTPS Superintendent, NTPS Chief Operations Officer, and NTEA President made joint visits to each of our district’s twenty-one schools to present information about SB 6696 and our role as a pilot district.
A parent and community meeting was held in the winter of 2011 to assist in model development for the teacher and principal criteria related to parents and community. As the 2011-2012 pilot year approaches we intended to continue our communication initiatives to ensure that all stakeholders in our district understand the new evaluation criteria and have a voice in the ultimate model that North Thurston Public Schools creates. In March 2011, we made a significant mid-course adjustment in our teacher evaluation framework and model. In our efforts to ensure that our final framework and model was reliable, valid, and research-based, we made the decision to partner with the leading national expert in teacher evaluation, Charlotte Danielson. Through her guidance, support, and recommendations we have adopted her Framework for Teaching Evaluation, which was first published in 1996 and is supported by empirical data that links every domain, component, and element to increased student achievement. Due to this adoption, our stakeholder engagement has shifted from one of input and feedback for the model development to one of information sharing and education of Charlotte Danielson’s philosophy, research, and evaluation instruments, forms, evidence and measures. Another parent meeting is scheduled for June to share the completion of our evaluation model and system.
Communication
District – Association Leadership and Communication
North Thurston Public Schools and North Thurston Education Association have made it a priority to work collaboratively together. As a result it was natural for, in 2009-2010, our assistant superintendent to team up with our association president to form a committee to study teacher and principal evaluation. They worked together to send a joint communication to all teachers and administrators in the district about the opportunity to participate in the formation of a teacher and principal evaluation committee (figure 1). This committee’s initial purpose was to review current NTPS teacher and principal evaluation practices and to investigate/consider the implications of SB 6696. Committee selection ensured inclusive representation from all levels and disciplines. We did not yet know whether or not NTPS would be selected to participate in the OSPI TPEP pilot process so we began our work under the name of the “Excellence in Teaching and Learning Subcommittee.” Our intention was for this committee’s work to continue regardless of its official involvement in the state’s pilot process.
Team Communication
We were ecstatic to learn in the late spring of 2010 of our selection as a TPEP Pilot District and quickly set to adjusting our team structures accordingly. In anticipation of developing and testing new evaluation models, we felt the need to increase the size of our committee. While the original team was a representative group of teachers and principals from the elementary, middle, and high school levels, we did not have each of our district’s twenty-one schools represented on the team. Once again, our association president teamed up with district administration to invite and recruit additional team members. By the time we added a representative from every school in addition to our current assortment of district and building administrators, specialists, and teachers, our committee had grown to nearly forty members. This necessitated a shift in our team structure to allow for effective communication back to each school building. In addition to our large team, a leadership team, comprised of a teacher from each level, a special education teacher, building principals, district administrators, and NTEA/WEA leaders, was created to attend travel events and work collaboratively to plan meetings for the larger team.
School Communication
In April of 2011, TPEP presentations were delivered to each of the 21 school buildings by the principal and the teacher representative from the large team. The purpose of the school site meetings was to develop shared understanding of the following: the project team’s work to date, the adoption of Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teacher Evaluation, and the specifics of the pilot process. The informational presentation provided a detailed update about our teacher evaluation model development over the past year and explained the evaluative framework we will pilot during the 2011-2012 school year.
The building principals and TPEP teacher representatives communicated the following to their staff:
- Pilot project is designed with the intent of using an evaluation model that supports professional learning, student achievement and inform teacher performance.
- After months of research and development, the team was given the opportunity to partner with the leading, national expert, Charlotte Danielson.
- As a result of her consultation and support, NTPS has adopted the Danielson Framework for Teacher Evaluation as our new teacher evaluation system.
At the end of this communication presentation, each building shared the specifics of the pilot participation process. Every principal in the district will engage in the pilot with a representative group of volunteers from their school. The pilot participant selection process is attached.
Professional Development
The professional development plan will kick-off on June 30, 2011 with a teacher evaluation workshop for all the teacher pilot participants and building administrators. At this workshop, participants will be trained on the use of Charlotte Danielson’s Teacher Evaluation Framework. Training will also center on the procedural steps of the observation/evaluation cycle. Participants will have the opportunity to engage with the various instruments, forms, evidence, and measures that make up our entire model.
In addition to the initial kick-off workshop, the building administrators will spend two days during their Administrative Leadership Academy (ALA) in a workshop presented by Marilyn McGuire. The workshop will focus on teacher evaluation process, tools, and observer training.
Data
In development.
Tools & Forms
See the Evaluation Cycle Packet (PDF).
Contact Information
Contacts for North Thurston Public Schools:
Details/Framework/Processes: Project Facilitator, Ryan Akiyama (rakiyama@nthurston.k12.wa.us)
Policy/District Leadership: Chief Operations Officer, John Bash (jbash@nthurston.k12.wa.us)