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
Wenatchee’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 Principal Workbook
- Glossary
- Visual Model Diagram
- Revised Criteria & Definitions
- Summative Performance Level Evaluation Statements
Wenatchee’s Principal Model
- Leadership Framework
- Measures & Evidence
- System for Determining Final Summative Principal Rating
- 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.
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.
Wenatchee’s Teacher Model
Introduction
Process
In Wenatchee, we formed three committees: a Steering Committee made up of the superintendent, four administrators and three teachers; a Teacher Committee with five administrators and six teachers, and a Principal Committee with six administrators and five teachers.
Among committee goals were to:
- Develop evaluation tools that reflect current research and promote professional growth.
- Review the current tools and retain those aspects that are effective and eliminate or revamp those aspects that are not.
- Build off of previous work and experiences.
- Effectively use multiple measures of student growth for building/instructional improvement.
- Develop tools that are truly beneficial, not just the fulfillment of a requirement.
We brought in Scott Poirier, formerly Assistant Superintendent for secondary education at the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), currently the K-12 Education Coordinator for the Washington Education Association (WEA), to work with us on the creation of evaluation rubrics.
Then the committees rolled up their sleeves and got to work. The Teacher Committee began aligning existing district evaluation descriptors to the new criteria set forth by the state. They created new descriptors and identified evidence and measures for evaluating performance criteria and student growth.
The Principal Committee identified research-based characteristics of effective principal evaluation to create rubrics keeping with the characteristics and standards of effective leadership. They wrote the ‘gold standard’ for each criterion and aligned indicators to each gold standard, then differentiated the language for each of the four tiers.
Communication and transparency are an important part of the process. Face-to-face is always best, so we met with building staffs for interactive dialogs. We also have a website rich in information, including budget (we were allotted $115,000 in grant funds to support our work.), goals, meeting minutes, committee members, links to state resources, and newsletters. We mail print newsletters and send eNewsletters to the community, and use email to communicate with all staff.
In January, the Steering Committee attended a TPEP-sponsored conference in Spokane, where we submitted the rubrics-in-process to national education expert, Charlotte Danielson. At this juncture the state TPEP steering committee recognized the importance of including instructional frameworks in conjunction with evaluation tools. Wenatchee has been working with Robert J. Marzano, PhD, a leading researcher in education, for our instructional framework. We began matching evaluation criterion to the Marzano framework. We also began work on determining a summative rating.
Currently we have posted our rubrics on our district Evaluation Pilot website and are preparing to submit our rubrics to the TPEP Steering Committee.
Lessons Learned So Far
One of the biggest lessons we’ve learned is that a collaborative working relationship is a must. We also realized that we didn’t know what we didn’t know, so technical support from WEA and the OSPI has been extremely beneficial. The work of finding the ‘cut-line’ has been challenging. We learned that an instructional framework is critical for creating a teacher evaluation tool, and that implementation of the new model will change the way we look at professional development. Professional development will now align to the instructional framework, where in the past professional development focused more on content-specific instructional strategies.
Comprehensive Instructional Frameworks
❒ Danielson
✓ Marzano
❒ 5-D (Center for Educational Leadership)
❒ McRel
❒ Other (Teaching as Leadership, National Board, Star Protocol, BERC, etc)
Wenatchee is working with Robert J. Marzano, PhD, a leading researcher in education, for our instructional framework. Marzano has written more than 30 books and 150 articles on topics such as instruction, assessment, writing and implementing standards, cognition, effective leadership, and school intervention. His specificity of teacher behaviors will help guide our observations and goal setting. More than 100 Wenatchee educators have attended training with Marzano. In an agreement with OSPI, Marzano committed to several long-term professional development workshops throughout Washington State as part of “Getting Serious About School Reform: Three Critical Commitments.”
Marzano Framework Supporting Documents
- Marzano Teacher Evaluation Rubrics (PDF) (Revised 1/20/12)
- Marzano Instructional Framework Aligned to State Criteria (PDF)
- Wenatchee School District Classroom Teacher Evaluation Criteria (PDF)
- Marzano Classroom Teacher Scales (PDF) (document revised 1/3/12)
Learn more about the Marzano framework.
Rubrics
Wenatchee uses the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model. Learn more about the framework and rubrics.
Measures & Evidence
| Observation | Self-Assessment | Other Measures & Evidence | Student Growth Data |
| To Be Developed. | To Be Developed. | Built into Rubrics. | Built into Rubrics. |
Teacher Pilot Year – Evidence and Measures (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.
Wenatchee will use a raw score/conditions hybrid model to reach a final summative evaluation.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Groups
- Pilot Participants
- Evaluation Pilot committee members
- Wenatchee School District teachers and administrators
- Stakeholders within the education community are not participating in the District pilot project.
- Non-participating school district staff
- Wenatchee School Board
- School District Administrators (not directly participating)
- Wenatchee Education Association Officers
- State Teacher Principal Evaluation Pilot Steering Committee (TPEP)
- Stakeholders outside of the education community.
- Parents
- Community members
- Educators and other communities throughout Washington State
Communication
Overview
The objective of the Evaluation Pilot communication Plan is to ensure that all Wenatchee School District Evaluation Pilot stakeholders and the broader community are fully informed about the scope and goals of the Evaluation Pilot project. The communication plan supports the strategic objectives and provide action items and timelines for the communication of the Evaluation Pilot project, as required by Washington State law E2SSB 6696. This plan serves as a guiding map for all internal and external communications.
Goals and Purposes
- Project Awareness
- Specific information and events
- Timelines
- Roles and responsibility
- Formative feedback during the development stage
- Evaluative feedback during the Pilot process
- Ensure a clear understanding of the project and new state evaluation requirements
- Gather formative feedback while creating the evaluation tools to make adjustments to the tools, processes, timelines, etc.
- Gather evaluative feedback during and after the pilot regarding tools, processes, timelines, etc.
Key Communicators
- Evaluation Pilot Steering Committee members
- Evaluation Pilot Principal and Teacher Committee members
- Wenatchee School District Improvement Task Force (composed of district administrators, teachers, and community members) Evaluative feedback from parents and business owners will be solicited through the District Improvement Task Force, which is a strategic planning advisory body.
Communications Method
- Meetings and Presentations
- Website
- Publications
- Professional Development
- Surveys
View Wenatchee’s communication plan in full (PDF) or view some examples here (PDF).
Professional Development
Required Training for Wenatchee Teacher Evaluation Pilot participants:
- Rubric and calibration training for all principals and participating teachers.
- Marzano Instructional Framework training for all participating principals and teachers.
- Marzano Instructional Framework, which is an integral component of the evaluation too.
Optional Training for all staff:
- Rubric and calibration training.
- Marzano Instructional Framework training.
Data
Wenatchee School District uses Data Director.
Incorporation of Student Growth Data
Teacher evaluation criterion six addresses the use of student growth data. The rubric reads: Criterion 6. Use multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning: The teacher uses multiple data elements to guide students in self-reflection and goal setting, to modify instruction, and to design and modify appropriate student assessments; also, the teacher can show that the students in his/her classroom have made growth and/or met course or grade-level standards using multiple measures.
Principal evaluation criterion eight addresses how student growth data is incorporated. The rubric reads: Criterion 8: Demonstrates a commitment to closing the achievement gap. Criterion 8.3 Student Growth Data defines the gold standard for this criterion: The principal is able to demonstrate that 80% of all students have made growth or met grade level standards in content areas identified in district accountability requirements (AYP, etc). Multiple measures will be used which may include MAP, District-Based Assessments, Classroom- Based Assessments CBPAs, WLPT, or DRA, to name several.
Tools & Forms
Professional Growth Form (PDF)
Evaluation Pilot Process (PDF)
Contact Information
If you have questions about Wenatchee’s model, please contact:
Superintendent: Brian Flones – flones.b@mail.wsd.wednet.edu
Director of Human Resources: Lisa Turner – turner.l@mail.wsd.wednet.edu
WenEA President: Gayle Northcutt – northcutt.g@mail.wsd.wednet.edu
President of the Principals/Directors Association: Mark Helm – helm.m@mail.wsd.wednet.edu
Assistant Superintendent: Jon DeJong – dejong.j@mail.wsd.wednet.edu
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 “Eval uating 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
| Revised Principal Evaluation Criteria | |
| 1. | Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff. |
| 2. | Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap. |
| 3. | Leading the development, implementation, and evaluation of a data-driven plan for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements./font> |
| 4. | Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment with state and local district learning goals. |
| 5. | Monitoring, assisting, and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices. |
| 6. | Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities. |
| 7. | Partnering with the school community to promote student learning. |
| 8. | Providing for school safety. |
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.
Wenatchee’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 to help unwrap individual criterion and for identifying evidence and measures.
In addition, we researched model tools from all over the country, including Iowa, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Kentucky.
We also reviewed the research on effective principal evaluation, including West Ed’s Moving Leadership Standards into Everyday Work, the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality’s “Evaluating School Principals,” Learning Point’s “Measuring Principal Performance: How Rigorous Are Publicly Available Principal Performance Assessment Instruments?”, and finally, “Purposes, Uses, and Practices of Leadership Assessment in Education from the University of Washington’s Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Though much of the work we reviewed was aligned to the ISLLC standards, by creating a crosswalk document we were able to mine a lot of good information from these documents.
Measures & Evidence
| Observation | Self-Assessment | Other Measures & Evidence | Student Growth Data |
| School-based observation has been identified as one of the measures for some of the criteria. A review of the tool will show which criterion indicators we intend to measure using observation. |
We will use self-assessment as part of the development of professional growth plans. See bookmark two, entitled Evaluation Process. | We have identified a wide array of measures and evidence that range from artifacts, to observations, to data reports. A review of the tool will show which measures we have identified for each indicator under the individual criterion. | We have included an indicator entitled, Student Growth Data under criterion 8. Ratings for this indicator will be based upon the percentage of students making growth or meeting standards in AYP subject areas. |
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.
Wenatchee will pilot three different approaches to the Conditions Model. Those approaches can be found in bookmark 3, entitled Summative Reports.
Click here to view Wenatchee’s Summative Reports (PDF).
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Groups
- Pilot Participants
- Evaluation Pilot committee members
- Wenatchee School District teachers and administrators
- Stakeholders within the education community are not participating in the District pilot project.
- Non-participating school district staff
- Wenatchee School Board
- School District Administrators (not directly participating)
- Wenatchee Education Association Officers
- State Teacher Principal Evaluation Pilot Steering Committee (TPEP)
- Stakeholders outside of the education community.
- Parents
- Community members
- Educators and other communities throughout Washington State
Communication
Overview
The objective of the Evaluation Pilot communication Plan is to ensure that all Wenatchee School District Evaluation Pilot stakeholders and the broader community are fully informed about the scope and goals of the Evaluation Pilot project. The communication plan supports the strategic objectives and provide action items and timelines for the communication of the Evaluation Pilot project, as required by Washington State law E2SSB 6696. This plan serves as a guiding map for all internal and external communications.
Goals and Purposes
- Project Awareness
- Specific information and events
- Timelines
- Roles and responsibility
- Formative feedback during the development stage
- Evaluative feedback during the Pilot process
- Ensure a clear understanding of the project and new state evaluation requirements
- Gather formative feedback while creating the evaluation tools to make adjustments to the tools, processes, timelines, etc.
- Gather evaluative feedback during and after the pilot regarding tools, processes, timelines, etc.
Key Communicators
- Evaluation Pilot Steering Committee members
- Evaluation Pilot Principal and Teacher Committee members
- Wenatchee School District Improvement Task Force (composed of district administrators, teachers, and community members) Evaluative feedback from parents and business owners will be solicited through the District Improvement Task Force, which is a strategic planning advisory body.
Communications Method
- Meetings and Presentations
- Website
- Publications
- Professional Development
- Surveys
View Wenatchee’s communication plan in full (PDF) or view some examples here (PDF).
Professional Development
Purpose:
There are two primary purposes behind the pilot professional development: (1) create shared understanding about the content/expectations of the rubrics and the use of the identified evidence/measures, and (2) provide training that aligns to the rubrics and promotes professional growth.
Methods:
Two hours of professional development will be provided each month in support of the principal evaluation pilot. Each training will be provided one month in advance of when the individual criterion will be reviewed in the principal-supervisor 1 on 1 meeting. The training format will be as follows: (1) review and discuss the content and expectations of each rubric, (2) principals will share samples of the evidence/ measures that they will use for each rubric, (3) participants will share best practices from personal experience that relate to the individual rubrics, and (4) participants will review current literature that is relevant to the criterion being studied.
Wenatchee’s Professional Development Plan (PDF).
Professional Development Calendar (PDF).
Data
Wenatchee School District uses Data Director.
Teacher evaluation criterion six addresses the use of student growth data. The rubric reads: Criterion 6. Use multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning: The teacher uses multiple data elements to guide students in self-reflection and goal setting, to modify instruction, and to design and modify appropriate student assessments; also, the teacher can show that the students in his/her classroom have made growth and/or met course or grade-level standards using multiple measures.
Principal evaluation criterion eight addresses how student growth data is incorporated. The rubric reads: Criterion 8: Demonstrates a commitment to closing the achievement gap. Criterion 8.3 Student Growth Data defines the gold standard for this criterion: The principal is able to demonstrate that 80% of all students have made growth or met grade level standards in content areas identified in district accountability requirements (AYP, etc). Multiple measures will be used which may include MAP, District-Based Assessments, Classroom- Based Assessments CBPAs, WLPT, or DRA, to name several.
Tools & Forms
View Wenatchee’s Tools & Forms (PDF).
One on One Meeting Schedule
Principal Evaluation Process (PDF)
Principal Evaluation Plan – Part 2 (PDF)
Contact Information
If you have questions about Wenatchee’s model, please contact:
Superintendent: Brian Flones – flones.b@mail.wsd.wednet.edu
Director of Human Resources: Lisa Turner – turner.l@mail.wsd.wednet.edu
WenEA President: Gayle Northcutt – northcutt.g@mail.wsd.wednet.edu
President of the Principals/Directors Association: Mark Helm – helm.m@mail.wsd.wednet.edu
Assistant Superintendent: Jon DeJong – dejong.j@mail.wsd.wednet.edu