1 / 37

TPEP Policy and Implementation Design

TPEP Policy and Implementation Design. Putting the PEP in TPEP ESD 189 Anacortes, WA August 7 th , 2014. Instructional Objectives.

alton
Download Presentation

TPEP Policy and Implementation Design

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TPEP Policy and Implementation Design Putting the PEP in TPEP ESD 189 Anacortes, WA August 7th, 2014

  2. Instructional Objectives 1. Understand the background of TPEP including the federal mandate, state level theory of action and framing of the Washington context compared to other states. 2. Understand the implementation design behind three components of TPEP: "The What” (Criteria), “The How” (4 tiers), “The How Much” (Student Growth) 3. Introduce a comparison of E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895 to understand how the evaluation system evolved from a state level.

  3. Why Measure Educator Effectiveness? While there are many formative and summative reasons to measure teacher and principal effectiveness, we believe the ultimate goal of all measurement should be..... to improve teaching and student learning.

  4. State and Federal Policy Context RIF & Tenure Decisions $ RttT Theory of Action If we built a statewide system designed for the growth and development of educators, then students will have access to high quality instruction that meets their learning needs. Over 25 Years with the same evaluation system “Widget Effect” & The Great Recession

  5. Shifting Thinking to a Growth Mindset

  6. TPEP Core Principles • Quality teaching and leading is critically important. • Professional learning is a key component of an effective evaluation system. • Teaching and leading is work done by a core team of professionals. • Evaluation systems should reflect and address the career continuum. • An evaluation system should consider and balance “inputs or acts” with “outputs or results.” • Teacher and principal evaluation models should coexist within the complex relationship between district systems and negotiations.

  7. Teacher Evaluation System Design Assessing Teacher Effectiveness, Charlotte Danielson

  8. Brief History of Evaluation in WA • RCW: Revised Code of Washington (Law) 1976 RCW 28A.405.100 2010 & 2012 Legislative Bills E2SSB 6696 & ESSB 5895 RCW 28A.405.100 • WAC: Washington Administrative Code (Rules) 1976- WAC 392-191 1984- WAC 392-191 1992- WAC 392-191 2012- Chapter 392-191A Professional Growth and Evaluation of School Personnel

  9. Before 2010 & After 2012: A Snapshot

  10. National SnapshotReductions in Force (RIF) and Dismissal • 14 states use seniority as the sole determinant for RIF decisions. • Arizona prohibits the use of seniority in making RIF decisions. • Fewer than 1 percent of teachers with two or more years of experience are dismissed. • Rhode Island teachers who receive “unsatisfactory” ratings two years in a row are recommended for dismissal. (Sources: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Franck et al., 2011)

  11. National SnapshotEvaluations & Student Learning • Thirty-two states (plus DC) have recently changed their state educator evaluation policies. • 24 of them now requiring that student growth or value-added data be used as evidence of student learning. • 17 states (plus DC and CA CORE Districts) require such evidence to factor “significantly” in teachers’ evaluations. (National Council for Teacher Quality, 2011)

  12. National Snapshot – Teacher Tenure

  13. National SnapshotEvaluations & Professional Learning • 12 states currently require teacher evaluations to inform professional development. • 24 states require that teachers receive feedback on their evaluations, but the other 26 states have no such requirement. (Source: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2011)

  14. Current Climate and Conversation • Vergara vs. California - California • Parents’ Transparency Project- New York • Campbell’s Law Comes to Atlanta “Wrong Answer” by Rachel Aviv in The New Yorker, July 21, 2014 (p. 54-65),http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/21/wrong-answer; Campbell’s Law goes like this: “The more any quantitative social indicator (or even some qualitative indicator) is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.” (Donald Campbell, 1976)

  15. “How” Are We Measuring?Criteria and Tiers

  16. “WHAT” Are We Measuring? Teacher & Principal Evaluation Criteria

  17. Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

  18. The Reality….for most teachers • “If you thought I was perfect, you weren’t paying attention.” • A teacher after getting a glowing evaluation from the principal • “I want honest feedback,” said another. “I want to be given extra ideas and ways to take it further, angles I haven’t thought of myself.” • Shawn Blankenship in Connected Principals, July 25, 2014, http://connectedprincipals.com/archives/10634

  19. Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory

  20. Implications • Turn to a partner and make a claim and provide evidence about the implications of moving from a 2 tiered system to a 4 tiered system and/or changing criteria. • Consider: • Knowledge and Skill of Evaluators • Capacity at every level • Ability to pinpoint areas of strength or challenge • Depth of conversations about teaching and leading

  21. “How Much” Are We Measuring? Student Growth

  22. TPEP Student Growth Task Force • Committee was formed in August of 2011 • Concluded work June, 2012 • 18 TPEP Practitioners (2 from each site) • 7 Experts from higher education, districts outside of TPEP pilots, SIG districts • Recommendations were completed on Student Growth, Perception Data and Evaluator Training and Support

  23. Defining Key Terms • Student Achievement: The status ofsubject-matter knowledge, understandings, and skills at one point in time. • Student Growth (Learning): The growth in subject-matter knowledge, understandings, and skill over time.

  24. It is student growth, not student achievement, that is relevant in demonstrating impacts teacher and principals have on students.

  25. Student Growth Rubrics • The TPEP steering committee organizations approved statewide rubrics for student growth to ensure consistency in implementation of the evaluation system across Washington State. • The rubrics for student growth describe both goal-setting and outputs of student learning. • OSPI has provided student growth rubrics for each of the three criterion • Teachers #3, #6, and #8 • Principals #3, #5, and #8

  26. Growing Concerns for Using Growth in High Stakes Decisions • American Statistical Association (April 2014) • VAMs should be viewed within the context of quality improvement. • Cautions their use for high stakes accountability. • Polikoff & Porter (May 2014) • No association between value added results and measures of teacher quality. • Harris, Ingle, & Rutledge (January 2014) • Teacher value added measures and informal principal evaluations are positively, but weakly correlated.

  27. Growing Concerns for Using Growth in High Stakes Decisions • Brown Center on Education Policy (May 2014) • A school’s VAM negatively impacts good teachers in bad schools and positively impacts bad teachers in good schools. Measure should be eliminated or weight reduced in evaluation systems. • Increase in Legal Action • Transition to New Assessments

  28. System Consistency Claim • Turn to a partner and either support or challenge the following claim about the statewide evaluation policy: • Having common criteria (instructional and leadership frameworks) and student growth rubrics will create consistency across the state and provide comparability from district to district.

  29. Background of E2SSB 6696A Race…to the Top… • Part 1 – Accountability (including Required Action) • Part 2 – Teacher and Principal Evaluation • Part 3 – Seattle principal tenure provision • Part 4 – Prep programs open to non-higher ed providers • Part 5 – Requires public colleges to offer alt routes • Part 6 – Requires teacher prep programs to administer a field-based assessment to pre-service candidates • Part 7 – Authorizes OSPI to provisionally adopt Common Core Standards

  30. Background ESSB 5895 • ESSB 5895 – Signed into law (RCW 405.100) June 7th, 2012 • Beginning in 2013-14, all districts are required to adopt and implement new evaluation systems for teachers and principals. • Changes were made to three significant parts of the legislation: • Instructional Frameworks • Rulemaking Authority Granted to OSPI • Student Growth Language

  31. Evaluation Components

  32. The Truth of our Challenge • It’s a myth that teaching is an innate talent, she says: “Researchers have found that the most effective teachers can be extroverts – or they can just as easily be introverts. Some are humorous, but others are serious. Some are as flexible as rubber; others are as rigid as a ruler. It’s not personality that makes a teacher great, but a specialized body of knowledge that must be learned – and that often goes against what comes naturally.”

  33. Thank you! Contact: Michaela Miller mmiller@nbpts.org Director of State Policy and Outreach National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

  34. Evaluation Policy Comparison • Using the two bills regarding evaluation, identify policy changes that were made between E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895. • Consider the following areas: • Teacher and Principal Criteria • Student Growth • Steering Committee Definition • Outline of Evaluation Policy Direction

  35. Areas of Contrast Between Legislation • Compare the following areas in the text: • Teacher and Principal Criteria • 6696 (Lines 4-14 pg. 18) • 5895 (Lines 15-28 pg. 2) • Student Growth • 6696 (Lines 15-23 pg. 18) • 5895 (Lines 29-38 pg 2, lines 1-36 pg 3) • Outline of Evaluation Policy Direction • 6696 (Lines 1-31, 31-38 pg. 21 & 22) • 5895 (Pages 10, 11 and 12)

  36. 6696 (Lines 15-23 pg. 18) (c) 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. When student growth data, if available and relevant to the teacher and subject matter, is referenced in the evaluation process it must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school- based, district-based, and state-based tools. As used in this subsection, "student growth" means the change in student achievement between two points in time.

  37. 5895 (Lines 29-38 pg 2, lines 1-36 pg 3) (f) Student growth data((, if available and)) that is relevant to the teacher and subject matter((, is referenced)) must be a factor in the evaluation process ((it)) 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. (g) Student input may also be included in the evaluation process.

More Related