You are here: Home / Regional Implementation Grants / RIG I Activities, Assurances, and Application Questions

RIG I Activities, Assurances, and Application Questions

Activities

To be eligible to participate in the TPEP ESD Regional Implementation Consortia Grant Program, involvement in the following activities will be expected of each district:

These activities include:

  • Regional consortia rater agreement training on selected teacher instructional framework(s).
  • Identification of and/or development of appropriate multiple measures of student growth.
  • Participation in professional development for principals and classroom teachers regarding the content of the new evaluation systems and eVAL management tool.
  • Participation in evaluator training.
  • Participation in activities to evaluate the effectiveness of the new systems and support programs.
  • Collaboration with other ESD implementation consortia, TPEP pilot districts, OSPI, WEA, AWSP, WASA, WSPTA, and WSSDA during the implementation process.

Assurances

The following assurances are based on the lessons learned from the first year of the TPEP pilot sites:

  1. Local associations representing classroom teachers and principals agree to collaborate with the district and to participate in the full range of development and implementation activities regarding ESSB 5895 including working with OSPI’s contractor, American Institute of Research (AIR), to assess implementation challenges and successes.

  2. Use and calibration of instructional frameworks: Each consortium will engage in professional development designed to maximize rater agreement. Each of the three approved instructional frameworks can be found on our OSPI TPEP website.

    Resources to support the instructional frameworks:

    • Danielson, C. (2011). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd
      edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ISBN: 978‐1416605171.
    • Marzano, R. (2011). The art and science of teaching causal teacher evaluation model. Blairsville, PA: Learning Sciences International.
    • Five dimensions of teaching and learning (5d). Seattle, WA: Center for Educational Leadership. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from http://www.k‐12leadership.org/services/5‐dimensions.

  3. Use and calibration of leadership frameworks: Each consortium will engage in professional development designed to maximize rater agreement based on the AWSP Leadership Framework.

    • AWSP Evaluating Principal Leadership in a Performance‐Based School.

    4. d

  4. Districts will follow best practice(s) in developing and using data in the evaluation systems, including multiple measures, student growth data, classroom observations, and other measures and evidence.

  5. Districts must agree to meeting specific timelines and meeting dates as outlined by the ESD Implementation Grant Leadership Team.

  6. Consideration for team membership should include principals and classroom teachers, union/association leadership, human resource specialists, teaching and learning/curriculum leadership, and assessment/data coordinators.

  7. All stakeholders including the district superintendent must play a significant role in the implementation grant development.

  8. Districts will participate in professional development for district administrators, principals and classroom teachers regarding the content of the evaluation system and training on the eVAL management tool.

  9. Districts will collaborate with other ESD regional implementation consortia, TPEP pilot districts, OSPI, WEA, AWSP, WASA, WSPTA, and WSSDA during the implementation process.

Application Questions

  1. Relationships with principal/teacher associations: How would you characterize the district’s current working relationship with the principal and teacher associations?

  2. Communication: How will your district communicate with both pilot and non‐pilot participants regarding the new evaluation implementation? How will you monitor the communication to ensure a consistent feedback loop and broad involvement in the Regional Implementation Consortia Grant process?

    • Parent and community feedback: What are your current methods for obtaining feedback from parents and school communities?

  3. In‐district collaboration: How will your district develop a collaborative process in constructing the rater agreement requirement in new evaluation systems? Who in your district will be involved in this process? How will you get buy‐in for the new evaluation systems?

    • ESD collaboration: Describe collaboration efforts your district has engaged in with your regional ESD. Explain how your district will continue to work in collaboration with other local districts through the ESD to ensure intentional development and implementation.
  4. Consortia participation: Why does your district want to continue with the TPEP ESD regional consortia? What factors will your district bring to a collaborative consortium process?