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 (including Snohomish’s definitions)
Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements

Snohomish’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

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.

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.

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.

Observation	Self-Assessment	Other Measures & Evidence	Student Growth Data
Summative rubric.	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.

Snohomish Evaluation Models

State TPEP Teacher Workbook

Snohomish’s Teacher Model

State TPEP Teacher Workbook

Glossary

The What

The How

Visual Model Diagram

Revised Criteria & Definitions

Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements

Snohomish’s Teacher Model

Introduction

Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks

Rubrics

Measures & Evidence

Final Summative Evaluation

System for Determining Final Summative Teacher Rating

Community and Stakeholder Engagement

Communication

Professional Development

Data

Tools & Forms

Contact Information

Sharing Options

Search Our Site

Subscribe to Updates

Steering Committee Organizations

Latest News