State TPEP Teacher Workbook
- Visual Model Diagram
- Revised Criteria & Definitions (including Snohomish’s definitions)
- Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements
Snohomish’s Teacher Model
- Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
- Measures & Evidence
- Final Summative Evaluation
- Stakeholder & Community Engagement
- Professional Development
- Tools & Forms
- Contact Us
State TPEP Teacher Workbook
Revised Teacher Evaluation Criteria: (Defined in RCW)
The Legislature passed E2SSB 6696 and Governor Gregoire signed the bill into law (RCW 28A.405.100) on March 29, 2010. The criteria form the backbone of the new evaluation system. The TPEP districts have used the evaluation criteria language and existing or new instructional frameworks to develop the rubrics. According to the RCW, “the four-level rating system used to evaluate the certificated classroom teacher must describe performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.”
Criteria Definitions: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
Based on feedback from experts and our TPEP districts, we have created definitions for each of the new teacher criterion. Each of the TPEP districts submitted definitions and we synthesized those into one brief sentence. This is intended to delineate the criteria in order to minimize the overlap between the criterion and create more consistency across the state in setting clear evaluation targets for teachers and principals as we move to statewide implementation.
Comprehensive Instructional Framework: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The comprehensive instructional framework (common language/model of instruction) provides districts with a way to talk about instruction that is shared by everyone in the district/ESD. Marzano states that teachers and principals use the instructional framework “to converse about effective teaching, give and receive feedback, collect and act upon data to monitor growth regarding the reasoned use of the strategies, and align professional development needs against the framework.” There are several instructional frameworks being utilized by the TPEP districts. Because the new teacher criteria are unique to Washington, the TPEP districts have aligned the instructional frameworks (and subsequently the rubrics) to the new state criteria.
Rubrics: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The rubrics (based on the instructional frameworks) are the clearly defined continuum that describes unsatisfactory through effective teaching practice based on the 8 teacher criteria. The rubrics should be used to train principals to identify strengths and weaknesses in practice based on clearly defined evidence and measures. These rubrics could take into account the variations of novice to expert teachers.
Measures and Evidence: (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots)
The measures and evidence are used to determine the “teacher’s performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.” The measures used in the evaluation system should have strong correlation to the criteria being evaluated. There are four areas under the “measures and evidence” section: classroom observation, teacher self-assessment, student growth data, other measures/evidence. This section should represent the district’s system for determining final summative evaluation score.
Final Summative Evaluation: (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot)
The final summative evaluation is a critical definition in order to ensure consistency across the state as teachers are evaluated and data is submitted in aggregate. In the late fall 8 of the 9 TPEP sites and WASA submitted a summative evaluation statement for each of the 4 tiers. Similar to the standards- based system for students, clear targets for both the distinct criteria and the final summative evaluation will drive principals and teachers to a evaluation system that promotes growth and prevents stagnation.
The TPEP project has been a collaborative process from the beginning. Successful development and ultimately implementation has and will require looking at this process through multiple lenses. Please include any documents your district/consortium has used to incorporate authentic stakeholder engagement through the pilot development year. (This will include the norms and protocols you used in setting up your district’s TPEP steering committee).
Communication is a key component to successful development and implementation of the new evaluation system. The collaborative approach at both the state and district levels is critical. Include the plan and documents that would explain your communication process.
Looking at this new evaluation system as a process in continuous improvement, professional development to train the staff involved in the pilot will be key. Please include your district’s plan for ongoing professional development for your teachers, principals and district administrators involved in the 2011-12 TPEP pilot year.
Many aspects of the new teacher and principal evaluation system will depend heavily on the acquisition and use of data. Include a description of resources your district already uses relating to instructional data and any additional resources you will need to implement the new evaluation system. (Include any technology, databases related to teacher, student, and/or principal data).
Forms & Tools:
Many parts of the new evaluation system will require changing the forms and tools used in the evaluation process. Please include and forms and tools developed for the new evaluation process. (Please note which ones are electronic and which are paper-based). Examples: Principal observation tools (pre, during and post), MOUs, artifact collection and observation tools, parent or student surveys, etc.)
Visual Model Diagram
Revised Criteria & Definitions
|Revised Teacher Evaluation Criteria||Criteria Definitions|
|1.||Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement.||PLANNING: The teacher sets high expectations through instructional planning and reflection aligned to content knowledge and standards. Instructional planning is demonstrated in the classroom through student engagement that leads to an impact on student learning.|
|2.||Demonstrating effective teaching practices.||INSTRUCTION: The teacher uses research-based instructional practices to meet the needs of ALL students and bases those practices on a commitment to high standards and meeting the developmental needs of students.|
|3.||Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs.||REFLECTION: The teacher acquires and uses specific knowledge about students’ individual intellectual and social development and uses that knowledge to advance student learning.|
|4.||Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum.||CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: The teacher uses content area knowledge and pedagogy to design and deliver curricula, instruction and assessment to impact student learning.|
|5.||Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment.||CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT: The teacher fosters and manages a safe, culturally sensitive and inclusive learning environment that takes into account: physical, emotional and intellectual well-being.|
|6.||Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning.||ASSESSMENT: The teacher uses multiple data elements (both formative and summative) for planning, instruction and assessment to foster student achievement.|
|7.||Communicating and collaborating with parents and school community.||PARENTS AND COMMUNITY: The teacher communicates and collaborates with students, parents and all educational stakeholders in an ethical and professional manner to promote student learning.|
|8.||Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving.||PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE: The teacher participates collaboratively in the educational community to improve instruction, advance the knowledge and practice of teaching as a profession, and ultimately impact student learning.|
After the TPEP meeting in Renton where we compared criterion definitions, Snohomish has reflected on definitions presented by other districts. In completing our draft rubrics, we believe the attached definitions more clearly and operationally define the State criteria. As you will note, there are certainly similarities between our definitions and the composite definitions presented in this document. In all cases, the definitions must be objective and measurable. We think our definitions do that.
Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements
These statements support teacher self-reflection, inform and structure professional conversations, and suggest areas for further professional growth.
Note:The bold text below are additions from Snohomish.
|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.
*Teachers will need to meet the proficient level
|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.
*Teachers will strive for this level. Snohomish School District doesn’t see Level 4 as consistently attainable. This is consistent with Charlotte Danielson’s work.
Adapted from “Framework for Teaching Levels of Performance Sample Operational Definitions” created by Pam Rosa, Danielson Group Associate.
Snohomish’s Teacher Model
Snohomish began work on a 4-tier evaluation system over 8 years ago. Participation in the Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot is seen as part of the inevitable refinement of work we had already done and we were eager to join the process. While any evaluation system must abide by the legal requirements for compliance, in Snohomish evaluation is much richer than that and has been used as a central component for professional growth. Professional growth, the idea that all educators have areas of strengths and weaknesses and that all educators can grow in order improve the learning of students, must be the central aspect of any evaluation process. Snohomish has used work by Danielson as central to our professional growth and evaluation for the entirety of our process.
Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
❒ 5-D (Center for Educational Leadership)
❒ Other (Teaching as Leadership, National Board, Star Protocol, BERC, etc)
Our model is primarily a Danielson model. Eight years ago when we first developed a four‐tiered system, we deliberately chose this model. “Enhancing Professional Practice” by Charlotte was used in the training of our staff. We do think it is critical as we move forward that our entire staff continue to use the same vocabulary in describing our professional practice.
Learn more about Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching.
Learn more about the Danielson framework and rubrics.
Measures & Evidence
|Observation||Self-Assessment||Other Measures & Evidence||Student Growth Data|
||Snohomish has always has a practice of reflection using the same rubric as a formal part of the evaluation process. We will continue this and may expect to include a pre and post self‐ assessment in all staff using the same rubric.||We are aware of the need for rubrics to evaluate using other measure of evidence. These may include a wide variety of artifacts from portfolios to lesson plans to newsletters to any other demonstration of performance, but we still need to develop these.||We are not tying student growth data to our teacher evaluation and have been clear and consistent in our views on this. Student growth data, or information about student learning, consists of far more robust and more timely information than simply standardized test scores; we are requiring that teachers be responsible for knowing and sharing information about student learning and planning for instruction using information about their students’ learning in an on-going and differentiated manner. Teachers now have ready access to more relevant and learner-centered information based upon the formative assessments they do every day, rather than the costly and time-delayed information that comes from standardized tests. Our view is consistent with the requirements of SB6696 and is also consistent with best professional practice. The purpose of gathering information about student learning is to help the teachers make better instructional choices so that they may better help all students grow, learn and achieve at high rates. There is quite a bit of evidence that if the purpose of gathering information about student learning is to evaluate teachers, it perverts both sides of that process and neither the information provided nor the judgments made using that information will be reliable.|
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.
Regardless of final summative system, the need for tightly calibrated inter‐rater reliability is at the center of any system in order to maintain integrity and trust. Snohomish strongly prefers a qualitative model as the calibration and reliability comes from a clear set of rubricated standards. While point and percentages provide the appearance of objectivity, they are easy to pervert or distort and do not solve the problems of inter‐rater reliability.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
The district has met with and will continue to meet with our parent group PLUSS (Parent Leaders United for Snohomish Schools), the School Board, teacher cadre meetings, and our administrative team. Our most recent teacher cadre helped to refine specific elements of our rubric. Presented to: PLUSS on April 14; School Board on April 13; full day teacher workshop on April 20; Principals on May 3.
Outside of the district: In March, the Snohomish School District met with the House and Senate Education Committees regarding TPEP. The district was invited to present on May 10 to Shoreline School District’s Board and administrative team. The district has also been invited to present at our local ESD’s curriculum director’s meeting on May 20 and WSPA’s May 24 meeting.
District administrative meetings and a five day summer retreat will be utilized for rater reliability training.
We are not tying student growth data to our teacher evaluation and have been clear and consistent in our views on this. Student growth data, or information about student learning, consists of far more robust and more timely information than simply standardized test scores; we are requiring that teachers be responsible for knowing and sharing information about student learning and planning for instruction using information about their students’ learning in an on-going and differentiated manner. Teachers now have ready access to more relevant and learner-centered information based upon the formative assessments they do every day, rather than the costly and time-delayed information that comes from standardized tests. Our view is consistent with the requirements of SB6696 and is also consistent with best professional practice. The purpose of gathering information about student learning is to help the teachers make better instructional choices so that they may better help all students grow, learn and achieve at high rates. There is quite a bit of evidence that if the purpose of gathering information about student learning is to evaluate teachers, it perverts both sides of that process and neither the information provided nor the judgments made using that information will be reliable.
Tools & Forms
If you have questions about the Snohomish model, please contact their TPEP Co-chairs:
Sylvia Roberts, Assistant Superintendent – (360) 563-7285
Justin Fox-Bailey, Snohomish Education Association President – (360) 568-4343