TPEP

TPEP stands for the Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project. Washington State passed legislation requiring school districts to implement a new evaluation system for all teachers and principals beginning in 2013-14. This new system is intended to provide consistent, meaningful feedback to educators that will more effectively promote continuous professional growth.

We are engaged in this specific work now to meet the deadlines included in the new state law. Our schools are fortunate to have a strong cadre of staff at all levels, and we believe all employees deserve to have meaningful opportunities to reflect on and improve their work. We appreciate the new evaluation system’s emphasis on professional growth, rather than simple compliance, and believe it is in alignment with the Ferndale School Districts belief that if we improve the quality of instruction in every classroom in our district, student achievement will increase.

Many decisions in this process were already made by the state. These include:

• Eight new evaluation criteria for teachers and principals
• Four-tiered rating system instead of the existing two-tiered system

All school districts in Washington State must begin using the new evaluation system for certificated staff and principals in 2013-14, with full implementation by 2016-17.

Each district must choose an instructional framework from three options the state provided. An instructional framework provides a common language:

1. to create a shared understanding about effective teaching,
2. to give and receive feedback, and
3. to collect and act upon data to monitor growth.

Ferndale School District selected the Five Dimensions of Teaching and Learning 5D+ Instructional Framework, developed by the University of Washington Center for Educational Leadership (CEL).

Washington State approved three instructional frameworks from which to choose:

• Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching
• Robert Marzano’s Teacher Evaluation Model
• The University of Washington’s Center for Educational Leadership (CEL) 5 Dimensions

While all of the frameworks are useful, our district work over the past three years has been around the adoption of the Five Dimensions of Teaching and Learning. Instructional Framework (prior to our awareness that this was a requirement for TPEP) In addition, of the three frameworks, the UW-CEL 5D+ framework represents the tightest alignment with district wide priorities.

• The associated rubrics promote teacher self-reflection and support goal-setting
• The vision put forth by the 5D+ framework supports our district priorities of professional collaboration, implementation of an instructional framework, development of common assessments and students involved in charting and monitoring their own progress
• The “big ideas” of the 5D+ vision are:
  • Rigorous standards for thinking and engagement for all students
  • Equity for all students
  • Students ownership of their own learning and student agency
  • Student independent application of academic and social skills
• The majority of districts in our region have adopted the UW CEL’s 5D framework, enhancing our ability to collaborate around professional development.

Setting up our new evaluation system is an evolving process as the state legislature and OPSI are making on-going decisions that will affect the process. For now, our next steps include:

• Development of a comprehensive professional development and implementation plan for evaluators and teachers that focuses on the instructional framework and the new evaluation system.

According to the latest guidance from OSPI, the new system is designed for principals, assistant principals and classroom teachers. Classroom teachers are defined as staff who provide “academically focused instruction” (including but not limited to English LA, Math, Science, Social Studies, Special Education, Music, PE, Art, CTE, etc.) Instructional coaches may or may not be considered classroom teachers under this definition depending on the nature of their role in the district.

Non-classroom teachers or ESAs (School Counselors, SLP, OT, PT, School Nurses, etc.) are not currently included in the new evaluation system, nor are administrators who do not have the specific role of principal or assistant principal. People in these positions will continue to be evaluated using our current system.

Beginning in 2013-2014, ESSB 5895 requires all provisional and probationary classroom teachers to receive comprehensive evaluations in the new process. Provisional teachers are those who are:

• In their first 3 consecutive years of teaching
• In their first 3 years of teaching in Washington State
• In their first year of teaching in a new district within Washington State

Probationary teachers are those who have received an unsatisfactory evaluation and are on a plan of improvement.

For administrators, ESSB 5895 requires that all principals who are in their first three consecutive years as a principal, or who were rated unsatisfactory in 2012-2013, or who are in their first year in a district must be included in the new evaluation system beginning in 2013-2014.

Previous Teacher Evaluation Criteria in Washington State

• Instructional skill
• Classroom management
• Professional preparation and scholarship
• Effort toward improvement when needed
• Handling of student discipline and attendant problems
• Interest in teaching pupils
• Knowledge of subject matter

New Teacher Evaluation Criteria in Washington State

• Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement
• Demonstrating effective teaching practices
• Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs
• Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum
• Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment
• Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning
• Communicating with parents and school community
• Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focus on improving instructional practice and student learning

Previous Principal Evaluation Criteria in Washington State

• Knowledge of, experience in and training in recognizing good professional performance, capabilities and development
• School administration and management
• School finance
• Professional preparation and scholarship
• Effort toward improvement when needed
• Interest in pupils, employees, patrons and subjects taught in school
• Leadership
• Ability and performance of evaluation of school personnel

New Principal Evaluation Criteria in Washington State

• Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff
• Providing for school safety
• Leads development, implementation and evaluation of a data-driven plan for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements
• Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessment with state and local district learning goals
• Monitoring, assisting and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices
• Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities
• Partnering with the school community to promote student learning
• Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap

From ESSB 5895: The ratings/tiers shall be as follows:

• Level 4 – Distinguished: Professional practice at 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, developmentally appropriate contributions throughout the instructional process. On-going, reflective teaching is demonstrated through the highest level of expertise and commitment related to all students’ learning, challenging professional growth, and collaborative leadership.

• Level 3 – Proficient: 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 his level teaching is strengthened and expanded through purposeful, collaborative sharing and learning with colleagues as well as ongoing self-reflection and professional improvement.

• Level 2 – Basic: Professional practice at Level 2 shows a developing understanding and demonstration of concepts underlying individual components of the criteria but performance is inconsistent. This level may be considered minimally competent for teachers early in their careers or experienced teachers in a new assignment, but insufficient for more experienced teachers. This level requires specific and relevant support.

• Level 1 – Unsatisfactory: Professional practice at Level 1 does not show evidence of understanding or demonstration of concepts underlying individual components of the criteria. This level of practice is ineffective and may represent practice that does not contribute to student learning, professional learning environment or effective teaching practice. This level requires immediate intervention and specific district support. Failure to show adequate growth is grounds for dismissal/nonrenewal.

Under the new evaluation system, a classroom teacher will receive one of the four ratings (distinguished, proficient, basic, or unsatisfactory) for each of the eight new evaluation criteria. The legislation requires classroom observations, collections of evidence (for unobserved or unobservable criteria), and student growth data to be considered as well. The state has provided a formula for how to balance these components into an overall rating, which the state calls the “comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating.”

Each district in the state of Washington is required to use the state determined summative evaluation scoring bands guidelines to determine the final summative score for a certificated classroom teacher. It is up to individual districts to determine the scoring methodology for each of the individual eight teacher evaluation criterion.

At the end of a comprehensive evaluation cycle each teacher will receive a summative 5D+ rubric score of 1-4 as described above & will receive a student growth rating of low, average or high.

What we currently know comes from ESSB 5895:

“Student growth data must be a substantial factor in evaluating the summative performance of certificated classroom teachers for at least three of the evaluation criteria (recently identified as 3, 6 and 8). Student growth data that is relevant to the teacher and subject matter must be a factor in the evaluation process and must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools. Student growth data elements may include the teacher’s performance as a member of a grade-level, subject matter, or other instructional team within a school when the use of this data is relevant and appropriate. Student growth data elements may also include the teacher’s performance as a member of the overall instructional team of a school when use of this data is relevant and appropriate. As used in this subsection, “student growth” means the change in student achievement between two points in time.”

Because multiple measures are required and because “student growth” is defined as the change in a student’s achievement between two points in time, state test scores cannot be the only measure for this component of teacher evaluation. In fact, in Ferndale we feel classroom-based, school-based and district-based assessments are better indicators of student growth between two points in time specifically as it relates to the timing of the MSP/HSPE reporting timelines, the shift in two years to the CCSS as measured by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, and the fact that most a large percentage of teachers do not have teaching responsibilities that are assessed with a state assessment.

Multiple measures means at least two or more measures of student growth over time.

Principals will still evaluate teachers; they will just be using a new system with some teachers starting in

2013-2014. However in Ferndale, our vision includes the active participation of each teacher in their own professional growth which includes a comprehensive self-assessment to inform the focused evaluation cycle, to inform an individual “cycle of inquiry” with regards to identification of student growth goals and collection of artifacts to serve as evidence of rubric indicators for each of the eight teacher evaluation criteria.

ESSB 5895 states:

“No administrator, principal, or other supervisory personnel may evaluate a teacher

without having received training in evaluation procedures. Before evaluating classroom teachers using the evaluation systems required under RCW 28A.405.100, principals and administrators must engage in professional development designed to implement the revised systems and maximize rater agreement.”

Training for principals and teachers will be provided to ensure deeper understanding of the teacher evaluation system and consistency in its application.

For teachers in years 1-5, an overall summative rating on the 5D+ rubric of 2 (basic) is acceptable.

From ESSB 5895:

“A teacher will be deemed unsatisfactory if rated Level 1. A teacher will also be deemed unsatisfactory if he/she is a continuing contract employee (under RCW 28A.405.210) with more than five years of teaching experience, and overall rating of Level 2 has been received for two consecutive years or for two years within a consecutive three-year time period.”

Teachers rated proficient for years may move from a comprehensive evaluation to a focused evaluation (formerly known as PGO). The focused evaluation cycle provides an opportunity to focus on one of the eight state criteria (based on self- assessments & previous years summative evaluations) and requires student growth measures. The criterion chosen for the focused evaluation must be approved by the teacher’s evaluator.

As currently required by the state, evaluation results are reported to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction as a group of summative scores, not by individual summative scores, and not by name.

Yes. All teachers and principals required to participate in the new evaluation system will receive professional development both before and during the first year of implementation and subsequent years thereafter. Professional development will focus on:

• Establishing a common vocabulary and shared understanding of elements of the 5D+ instructional framework
• Articulating which teacher and student moves demonstrate different components of the 5D+ instructional framework
• Looking at actual classroom lessons to help shape a vision of what effective implementation of high quality teaching looks like across different grade levels and different content areas
• Opportunities to participate in instructional rounds to learn with and from colleagues how to continuously improve instruction as related to the 5D+ rubric, to implement significant shifts associated with CCSS, to develop high- quality student growth goals and to identify multiple forms of evidence of student growth
• Implementation of the new evaluation system requirements and development of individual or PLC cycles of inquiry to guide on-going professional growth.

Professional development opportunities will be ongoing, varied and replicable for those joining in the process during years 2 and 3 of new evaluation implementation.