OSPI UPDATE AND CURRENT POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES 2012 ERNN Annual Workshop March 19, 2012| Yakima, WA Presented by: Alan Burke, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent of K-12 Education Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

Teacher and Principal Evaluation Update OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Changes in Teacher & Principal Evaluation per E2SSB 6696 Current Teacher Evaluation Criteria New Teacher Evaluation Criteria 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 Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement (i) Demonstrating effective teaching practices (ii) Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs (iii) Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum (iv) Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment (v) Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning (vi) Communicating and collaborating with parents and school community (vii) Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning (viii) Current Principal Evaluation Criteria New Principal Evaluation Criteria Knowledge of, experience in and training in recognizing good professional performance, capabilities and development School administration and management School finance Interest in pupils, employees, patrons and subjects taught in school Leadership Ability and performance of evaluation of school personnel Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff (i) Providing for school safety (iii) Leading the development, implementation, and evaluation of a data-driven plan for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements (iv) Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment with state and local district learning goals (v) Monitoring, assisting, and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices (vi) Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities (vii) Partnering with the school community to promote student learning (viii) Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap (ii)

Evidence/Measures and Methodology Summative Rating 1 2 3 4 Evaluation Criteria High Expectations Effective Teaching Practices Recognizing Individual Student Learning Needs Focus on Subject Matter Safe Productive Learning Environment Use of Multiple Student Data Elements to Modify Instruction Communicating with Parents and School/Community Exhibiting Collaborative and Collegial Practices Rubric(s) Rubrics based on evaluation criteria centered around district’s instructional framework(s) Evidence/Measures and Methodology Classroom Observation Self-Assessment Student Surveys Portfolios Instructional Artifacts Student Performance Measures

OSPI/TPEP Steering Committee Will Provide: A set of rubrics defining performance levels (1,2,3,4) for each of the eight criteria for teachers and principals A mechanism to aggregate scores on individual criteria to a summative rating (1,2,3,4) Districts will need to add what measures of evidence (observations, test scores, portfolios, surveys) will be used in determining performance levels

Educator Evaluation Measures: It Takes Many Pieces… Self-Assessment & Reflection Perception Survey Data Student Work Samples Student Learning/ Achievement Data Peer Evaluation Portfolio Assessments Planning Classroom Observation

SSB 5895/ E2SSB 6696 and Teacher Evaluation The “Sandbox” Classroom observations Portfolios of student work Students performance data Classroom School District State May include teacher’s performance as part of a grade level, subject matter, or other instructional team Self-assessment and reflection Student survey data Teaching artifacts – lesson plans

Highlights of SSB 5895 Student growth data must be a substantial factor in teacher and principal evals, and be included in at least three of the eight criteria. Issue #1:  Vertical scaling of student test scores Issue #2: Collective bargaining ramifications Issue #3: Can include “team” data in individual teacher evaluation The four ratings are named: Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished. 9/1/12 OSPI must identify three instructional frameworks. OSPI also must set up a process for approving "minor modifications or adaptions to one of the approved frameworks”. 12/1/12 OSPI must adopt rules (WACs) for calculating summative ratings for the preferred instructional frameworks. 12/1/12 OSPI must adopt rules that provide descriptors for each of the summative ratings.

Highlights of SSB 5895 (continued) A continuing contract (tenured) teacher with five years experience who receives a "2" rating in two of three years must be non- renewed. The TPEP Steering Committee is given multiple tasks (e.g., refine tools, examine implementation issues) necessary to implement the evaluation system. Supt. Dorn must give update reports on TPEP implementation annually through 2017. Districts have three years (2013–14, 2014–15, and 2015–16) to have all cert teachers evaluated on the new comprehensive system; provisional teachers and those with unsatisfactory ratings on the old system must be included in the group that is subjected to the comprehensive evaluation.

Highlights of SSB 5895 (continued) After phase in, all teachers must be evaluated at minimum once every four years on the comprehensive system. Those on a focused evaluation must be give a summative rating based on method adopted by OSPI for each of the three frameworks. All evaluators (principals and those who evaluate principals) must undergo appropriate training. A professional development plan that includes online tools will be developed by OSPI if funds are provided by the Legislature. Beginning in 2015–16, evaluation ratings must be used in the process of determining RIFs and assignment/transfer—determined through bargaining.

TPEP Professional Development Plan March 2012–May 2013 Knowledge of E2SSB 6696 (2011) and SSB 5895 (2012) Assistance in Instructional Framework Choice and Familiarity August 2012–September 2013 Principal Observation/Rater Agreement Training Superintendent/Central Office Training on the Principal Evaluation Framework and Evaluation Procedures

OSPI CCSS Update WASA Small Schools March 2012

What’s New: Implementation Partnerships – To name a few… Washington Communication: Key messages around… Each phase of implementation Bridging with current activities Needs of school districts to support professional learning to state policy makers CCSS Legislative Report (Jan. 1, 2012) Toolkits for various audiences (spring 2012) Seek resources to support implementation efforts Connections with CCSS Assessment System as it progresses Coordination & Commitment: ...of state professional learning partners CCSS State Steering Committee & Workgroups Identify and/or create resources to support the Phases of implementation Establish structures to support Phases I and II …in connection with new assessment system PLUS… Large School Districts Higher Education Statewide Education and Content Associations

Key next steps in Phase 2 – Spring & Summer 2012 Continue Building Statewide Awareness… CCSS Webinar Series, web resources CCSS Symposia for School District Teams CCSS Overview Presentations and Support (OSPI and ESD partners) Continue Statewide Coordination and Collaboration… Convene statewide professional learning content associations to coordinate statewide PD offerings OSPI cross-agency / initiative coordination (TPEP, Spec. Ed, early learning, etc.) Higher education coordination WA Assoc. Colleges of Teacher Education (April) PESB Endorsement Competency Revision Process HECB / SBAC Begin Building Statewide Capacity… In collaboration with 9 regional ESDs: CCSS Overview and Content-Specific Learning Opportunities Establish CCSS District Implementation Network Pilot Project

Learning More… Statewide Transition & Implementation Supports OSPI CCSS Website http://k12.wa.us/CoreStandards/default.aspx http://www.k12.wa.us/CoreStandards/UpdatesEvents.aspx#Webinar Targeted state and regional work with regional and district leadership teams Conference presentations throughout the year Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium information: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/

OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION State Testing Update This presentation provides: an overview of the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics Supports currently available to support districts hoping to begin transitions and an overview of additional resources for the future OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Current Statewide Summative (Student) Assessments Reading Mathematics Science Writing Grade 3 MSP Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 High School HSPE EOC MSP= Measurements of Student Progress; HSPE = High School Proficiency Exams; EOC= End of Course exams

Proposed Summative Assessments in 2014–15 English/LA Mathematics Science Grade 3 SBAC Grade 4 Grade 5 MSP Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10 HSPE ??? EOC ??? Algebra/Geometry EOC Grade 11 SBAC=SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium MSP= Measurements of Student Progress EOC= End of Course exams

Current Testing Requirements for High School Graduation by Class   Reading HSPE Writing Algebra EOC Geometry Biology Class of 2012 X Class of 2013 and 2014 (Either Algebra or Geometry) Class of 2015 and Beyond

Federal Rules and State Testing Only reading and math for Grades 3–8 and high school, plus Grades 5, 8, and 10 for Science are required by USEd. USEd does not require a link between high school exams and graduation but about half of the states require some form of exit exams. We currently spend $43/student in testing (federal and state funds)―more than most states. OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Federal Rules and State Testing Education Week, October 2011 The Truth About Testing Costs By Bill Tucker OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

SBAC Timeline This slide provides a snapshot of key activities related to the development process for the assessment system. One of the key areas in which districts and states have concerns is regarding technology systems capacity to support operation of the digital library and the assessments themselves – this is an issue present for all states and is embedded within the work of the 2011-12 year to continue doing technology capacity and development work. States and school districts will be asked to participate and respond to efforts to evaluate overall system readiness during the 11-12 year. This will likely be communicated and collected through and with district assessment coordinators. It is also anticipated that the pool of interim items and formative assessment tools will become available sometime in late 2012.

Current Testing System Cost of COEs will jump to $10M–$20M per test per year in 2013–15 biennium Reading and Math: Grades 3–8 and 10 Science: Grades 5, 8, 10 Writing: Grades 4, 7, 10 Cost: $43/student/year SBAC/CCSS Testing System English/Language Arts and Math: Grade 3–8 and 11* Cost: $20/student/year NOTE: Science exams are required under ESEA but are not included in SBAC *11th grade to measure college and career readiness. We are working with higher ed to explore the possible use of these measures as an alternative for college placement (or entrance). This slide provides a snapshot of key activities related to the development process for the assessment system. One of the key areas in which districts and states have concerns is regarding technology systems capacity to support operation of the digital library and the assessments themselves – this is an issue present for all states and is embedded within the work of the 2011-12 year to continue doing technology capacity and development work. States and school districts will be asked to participate and respond to efforts to evaluate overall system readiness during the 11-12 year. This will likely be communicated and collected through and with district assessment coordinators. It is also anticipated that the pool of interim items and formative assessment tools will become available sometime in late 2012.

ESEA Flexibility Update This presentation provides: an overview of the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics Supports currently available to support districts hoping to begin transitions and an overview of additional resources for the future OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

ESEA Flexibility Waiver Alternative to ESEA reauthorization. Available November 2011, February 2012, September 2012. 11 states approved from November submission. WA is one of the 26 states that applied in February. Peer review process expected to be completed by May. Benefits: AYP rules and procedures are eliminated upon waiver approval. Choice letters not necessary in 2012–13. SES set-asides not required in 2012–13.

Waiver Requirements Principle 1: Career and college expectations for all students. Common Core State Standards adoption SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium—test ready 2014–15 Principle 3: Supporting effective instruction and leadership. E2SSB 6696 and Teacher/Principal Eval Process (2011) SSB 5895 (2012) Principle 4: Reducing duplication and unnecessary burden.

Waiver Requirements (continued) Principle 2: State-developed differentiated recognition accountability and support Reward Schools Highest performing schools High-progress schools Will use cohort-based school improvement data when available Priority Schools 5% lowest performing Title I and Title 1-eligible schools with less than 60% graduation rate Like current SIG process (will add writing and science in 2013) Must use up to 20% of district Title I allocation to develop a school improvement plan that focuses on improving academic achievement Focus Schools 10% of Title I schools with highest proficiency gaps Title I high schools with less than a 60% graduation rate Must use up to 20% of district Title I allocation to develop a school improvement plan that focuses on closing identified gaps. (based on SBE WA Achievement Awards—including writing and science)

Waiver Requirements (continued) Principle 2: State-developed differentiated recognition accountability and support (continued) Annual Measurable Objectives Using 2011 as a baseline, set benchmarks that will cut proficiency gaps in half by 2017 for every WA school. No sanctions required, but the expectation is that SIPs would include strategies to close gaps. N size = 20

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) WA has opted to establish AMOs as equal increments set toward the goal of reducing by half the percent of students who are not proficient in all AYP sub categories by fall 2017 (within six years)

Questions? For more information visits: TPEP http://www.k12.wa.us/EdLeg/TPEP/default.aspx and http://tpep-wa.org/ CCSS Website http://k12.wa.us/CoreStandards/default.aspx SMARTER Balanced www.smarterbalanced.org ESEA Flexibility http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/PublicNotice.aspx

Thank you!