Understanding Washington State’s New Evaluation System

1. Understanding Washington State’s New Evaluation System A joint BIEA/BISD presentation BHS 5/3/12

2. Meeting Agenda Understand: • The law: SB 6696 & SB 5895 • The OSPI evaluation pilot and BISD involvement • The timeline for implementation • What next for BISD? • Professional Development Plan

3. Background and Rationale • Pilot was created in RCW 28A.405.100 (SSB 6696) • 6696 Creates new evaluation criteria for both classroom teachers and principals • Requires a four-level rating system • Requires OSPI to create a pilot with school districts in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 school year • Requires all districts to begin adopting new systems in the 2013-14 school year, and full implementation by 2015-2016.

4. Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot • 2010-2011: First year, some districts were selected to participate in a full pilot • 2011-2012: Second year, several districts (including BISD) were selected to participate in a Regional Implementation Grant • 2011-2012: Joint BIEA/BISD Teacher Evaluation Committee formed • January 2012: BIEA/BISD committee selected the Danielson framework • 2012-2013: Pilot of the new evaluation system with at least 20% certificated staff • Must include: All principals, All provisional, All non-continuing Additional participants: • Teachers on the TPEP committee • 2-6 teachers selected via a “stratified-random sampling” method per building • 2-4 more “volunteers” from each building • Full implementation 2015-2016

5. TPEP Committee • Barry Hoonan/Peter Bang-Knudsen Co-Chairs • Brad Lewis, Melanie Elliot, Keri Schmit, Kelly DeGuzman, Warren Read, Diane Lionetti, Jill Kimball, Cathy Lolley, Mike Florian, Sheryl Belt, CamiDombkowski

6. What does a “ Framework for Teaching” mean? • A description of the teacher responsibilities that promote improved student learning. • A definition of what teachers should know and be able to do in the exercise of their profession, based on research and best practice. • A common language that allows opportunities for educators to discuss good teaching. • A structure designed to address the complexities of teaching applicable to all practitioner levels from novice through accomplished.

7. Why Danielson? • Teacher Oriented • Research-based • User-friendly • Ample Resources • Most Widely Used

8. Additional Evaluation Component • Student Growth Data (how it will be used to be determined)

9. Next Steps May: Participants selected June: Danielson materials provided to selected participants July-Aug: All principals trained in Danielson Frameworks September-May: Training provided to all participants;

10. If I’m a continuing teacher and I get selected, or volunteer for the pilot, how will the evaluation work? • The principal will provide an evaluation based on the new model. • If a teacher has an overall evaluation of a Proficient or Distinguished, he or she will move to the focused evaluation model in 2013-2014 • If the teacher has an overall evaluation of Unsatisfactory or Basic, he or she can take a Mulligan (do-over) & the principal will do an evaluation based on the old evaluation system

11. Principal Training: Teachscape • The Framework for Teaching Proficiency System is a complete solution for observer training and assessment. • Developed in partnership with ETS and Charlotte Danielson, the Framework for Teaching Proficiency System enables districts and states to promote high-quality observations by implementing rigorous training for all observers.

12. Principal Evaluation • Association of Washington State School Principals • Eight new principal leadership criteria, as identified by the 2010 Legislature in E2SSB 6696 • Pilot 2012-13 All Principals • Committee developing process for all components • Brent Peterson • Bob Lewis • Jim Corsetti • Kristen Nelsen • Julie Goldsmith

13. PRINCIPAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

15. Professional Development Committee • Peggy Koivu, Beatrice Pastor, Erin Sheehan, Barry Hoonan, Denise Corso, Kirrin Coleman, Peg Dight/JoEllen O’Reilly, Lydia Scheiber, Cami Dombkowski, Bob Lewis, Julie Goldsmith. • Math Program Review Committee: Rory Wilson, Marilyn Tsolomitis, Jake Haley, Cathy Goetsch, Lisa Hale, Laura Kornfeld, Sean Yarr, Mike Florian, Adam Rabinowitz, Paul Sullivan, PegeenMulhern, Laurie Rice, Meg Evans, Stan Curtis, Megan Watson, Maureen Wilson, Reese Ande, Jennifer Burlingame, Vicki Milander, Richard Pearsall, Carol Baker, Bonnie Hansen.

16. Professional Development Plan to Support New Requirements 2012-13

17. District Professional Development Funds • Developing & Using Data: 2 Data Lead Teachers from each building to develop plans to support staff based on building needs; 6 hours of per diem to provide support and training to staff. • Principal/Teacher Evaluation Pilot: Training and support for pilot staff; Support workshops/lit circles for non-pilot staff. • Common Core State Standards: Continue support of new curriculum. Align resources to CCSS. Identify gaps and resources to bridge the gaps. Grade level/department meetings. Participation in ESD trainings.

18. Title IIa- Grant Funds • Support for Diverse Learners: Department Meetings; Training during early release for paraeducators. • Mathematics: Understand and begin to use CCSS: Math TOSA, Department/Grade Level Meetings.

19. Additional Resources: Technology (Levy): • Support for new equipment, programs, and standards: 6 hours of per diem planned at building; 2 hours of per diem to support development/use of the web. STEM (BSF Grant): • Support for STEM training and initiatives.

20. Additional Resources • Contact any TPEP member to answer questions • OSPI TPEP Website: http://www.k12.wa.us/EdLeg/TPEP/default.aspx • TPEP Website: http://tpep-wa.org/

21. Questions?