October Event Documents

October Event Details
October Event Documents
Charlotte Danielson’s Forms, Rubrics, and Online Training Resources (password protected)
October Event Q&A video (right-click to download)

Multiple Measures Documents

  • Multiple Ways to Measure Teacher Effectiveness (PDF, Word)
  • Methods of Collecting Data for the Teacher Evaluation Criteria (PDF, Word)
  • Unpacking Documents

  • What Does Quality Look Like? (PDF, Word)
  • Unpacking Standards (PDF, Word)
  • Unpacking and Setting Criterion Indicators (PDF, Word)
  • Unpacking Teacher Effectiveness Measures (PDF, Word)
  • Unpacking Teacher Evaluation Standards – Affinity Diagramming (PDF, Word)
  • Agenda

  • Download or view the agenda here (PDF)
  • Thursday, October 21

  • 8:30 am – 9:00 am: Light Breakfast
  • 9:00 am – 9:15 am: Welcome and Overview
  • 9:15 am – 9:45 am: Model Development – Component 1. “Evaluation systems and the district’s instructional framework.” Dana Anderson, Assistant Superintendent, ESD 113
  • 9:45 am – 10:15 am: Group Reflection and Next Steps
  • 10:15 am – 10:45 am: Model Development – Component 2. “Evaluation systems built on multiple measures.” Dana Anderson, Assistant Superintendent, ESD 113
  • 10:45 am – 11:00 am: Break
  • 11:00 am – 11:30 am: Group Reflection and Next Steps
  • 11:30 am – 12:00 am: Model Development – Component 3. “Establishing rubric framework and language.”
  • 12:00 pm – 12:15 pm: Group Reflection and Next Steps
  • 12:15 pm – 1:00 pm: Lunch
  • 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm: District Work Time
  • 4:00 pm: Adjourn for the day
  • Friday, October 22

  • 8:00 am – 8:30 am: Breakfast
  • 8:30 am – 10:30 am: District Process Stories
  • 8:30 am – 9:00 am: Snohomish Presentation
  • 9:00 am – 9:30 am: Peninsula Presentation
  • 9:30 am – 10:00 am: Anacortes Presentation
  • 10:00 am – 10:30 am: Questions and District Implications
  • 10:30 am – 10:45 am: Break
  • 10:45 am – 11:15 am: Principal Evaluation. Gary Kipp, AWSP
  • 11:15 am – 12:00 pm: District Work Time and Sharing
  • 12:00 pm – 12:45pm: Lunch
  • 12:45 pm – 3:00 pm: District Work Time and Sharing
  • 3:00 pm – 3:30 pm: TPEP Next Steps and Feedback
  • 3:30 pm: Adjourn

    Thursday, October 21

    Team Survey (Results)
    Survey Retake
    Component 1 & 2 Accompanying Presentation
    Dana Anderson’s Component 1 & 2 presentation video (right-click to download)

    Model Development – Component 1
    “Evaluation Systems and the district’s instructional framework”
    Dana Anderson
    Assistant Superintendent, ESD 113

    Purpose: Establishing new evaluation systems cannot be done in isolation. As Danielson (and many others) note, the evaluation system must be connected to and developed along with other district components (Hiring practices, mentoring and induction among many others). It is important that the districts in the pilot consider the district instructional framework as they develop their evaluation models.

    Essential Question: How does our locally adopted instructional framework fit within the evaluation process for teachers and principals?

    What to bring: Please bring your instructional framework from which your district’s their professional development, assessment systems and data infrastructure are driven. Examples may include: 1) Burke Group’s STAR Protocol; 2) CEL’s 5-Dimensions, 3) Danielson’s Framework for Teaching; 4) Marzano’s Art and Science of Teaching; 5) SIOP; 6) Other?

    Reflection Document

    Resources

  • Three Tensions (PDF, Word)
  • Instructional Frameworks (PDF)
  • (Back to top)

    Model Development – Component 2
    “Evaluation systems built on multiple measures”
    Dana Anderson
    Assistant Superintendent, ESD 113

    Purpose:: According to E2SSB 6696, the two assurances are that the new evaluation model will be grounded in the new 8 teacher and 8 principal criteria and be 4-tiered. In addition to those structural and content pieces, the bill addresses student growth. Additionally, districts may wish to consider other evidence to determine teacher and principal placement within the final 4-tier model. These measures may include: 1) Teacher reflections; 2) Teacher Portfolios; 3) Perception Surveys; 4) Student Work Samples; 5) Classroom Observations; 6) Student Achievement Measures; 7) Other?
    “Student Growth” is defined as the change in student achievement between two points in time.

    When used, if available and relevant to the teacher and subject matter, multiple data measures must be used. This can include:

  • Classroom based tools
  • School based tools
  • District based tools
  • State based tools
  • The districts in the pilot will begin to explore the state, district, school and classroom-based measures by which student growth could be measured. This discussion will serve to inform other districts outside of the pilot as they take on this task in the years to come.

    Essential Questions: What evidence will be used to determine teacher and principal placement within our rubric? How will the various measures be weighted? What is the formative nature of these measures, and how will a summative determination be made?

    What to bring: Districts attending this event should bring materials and resources to begin to look at establishing examples of multiple measures.

    This can include:

  • Benchmark student assessments
  • Parent surveys
  • MAP test scores
  • RTI data/resources
  • Many, many, many others….
  • Reflection Document

    Resources

  • Dashboard
  • Multiple Measures 2 (PDF, Word)
  • Methods of Collecting Data for the Teacher Evaluation Criteria (PDF, Word)
  • Unpacking Teacher Effectiveness Measures (PDF, Word)
  • Readings

  • Teacher Quality Research and Policy Brief (PDF)
  • Conceptualizing Teacher Quality (PDF)
  • OECD Multi-National Comparison (PDF)
  • (Back to top)

    Model Development – Component 3
    “Establishing evaluation rubric framework and language”
    Michaela Miller and Jim Koval, OSPI

    Purpose: The evaluation rubrics that are developed over the course of the pilot will need to have some consistency from district to district as we look to (many other reasons, but here is just a sample):

    1. Aggregate data at the district or state level
    2. Develop evaluation training for principals, teacher, and district level administrators
    3. Establish a foundational common language of quality instruction that can be utilized across districts.

    The evaluation rubrics that are developed over the course of the pilot will need to have some consistency from district to district as we look to (many other reasons, but here is just a sample).

    (Back to top)

    Friday, October 22nd

    District “Process” Stories
    Purpose:
    In response to the feedback from our Kick-Off and K-20 we have asked three districts to “tell their stories” about the process of moving to a new evaluation system. We have chosen two districts that have mature models (Peninsula and Snohomish) and one district at the beginning stages of evaluation development (Anacortes).

    Peninsula’s Documents
    Peninsula Presentation Video (right-click to download)

  • Teacher Evaluation Presentation (PDF, PPT)
  • Peninsula’s Evaluation Documents (pulled from their Collective Bargaining Agreement) (PDF)
  • Certificated Evaluation Level 1 (PDF, Word)
  • Certificated Evaluation Level 2 (PDF, Word)
  • Learning & Teaching Standards – Teachers (PDF, Word)
  • Learning & Teaching Standards – Principals (PDF, Word)
  • Principal Goal Setting (PDF, Word)
  • Anacortes Documents
    Anacortes Presentation Video (right-click to download)

  • Anacortes Presentation (PDF)
  • Survey Questionnaire (PDF)
  • Snohomish Documents
    Snohomish Presentation Video (right-click to download)

  • Snohomish Document Packet (PDF)
  • (Back to top)

    Gary Kipp, AWSP – Looking Into the Relationship Between Teacher and Principal Evaluation
    Gary Kipp’s Presentation Video (right-click to download)

  • Looking Into the Relationship Between Teacher and Principal Evaluation (PPT, PDF)
  • (Back to top)