Presentation on theme: "OSPI UPDATE AND CURRENT POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES"— Presentation transcript:
1 OSPI UPDATE AND CURRENT POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES 2012 ERNN Annual WorkshopMarch 19, 2012| Yakima, WAPresented by: Alan Burke, Ed.D.Deputy Superintendent of K-12 EducationOffice of Superintendent of Public Instruction
2 Teacher and Principal Evaluation Update OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
3 Changes in Teacher & Principal Evaluation per E2SSB 6696 Current Teacher Evaluation CriteriaNew Teacher Evaluation CriteriaInstructional skillClassroom managementProfessional preparation and scholarshipEffort toward improvement when neededHandling of student discipline and attendant problemsInterest in teaching pupilsKnowledge of subject matterCentering 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 CriteriaNew Principal Evaluation CriteriaKnowledge of, experience in and training in recognizing good professional performance, capabilities and developmentSchool administration and managementSchool financeInterest in pupils, employees, patrons and subjects taught in schoolLeadershipAbility and performance of evaluation of school personnelCreating 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)
4 Evidence/Measures and Methodology Summative Rating1234Evaluation CriteriaHigh ExpectationsEffective Teaching PracticesRecognizing Individual Student Learning NeedsFocus on Subject MatterSafe Productive Learning EnvironmentUse of Multiple Student Data Elements to Modify InstructionCommunicating with Parents and School/CommunityExhibiting Collaborative and Collegial PracticesRubric(s)Rubrics based on evaluation criteria centered around district’s instructional framework(s)Evidence/Measures and MethodologyClassroom ObservationSelf-AssessmentStudent SurveysPortfoliosInstructional ArtifactsStudent Performance Measures
5 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 principalsA 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
6 Educator Evaluation Measures: It Takes Many Pieces… Self-Assessment &ReflectionPerceptionSurvey DataStudent Work SamplesStudent Learning/ Achievement DataPeer EvaluationPortfolio AssessmentsPlanningClassroom Observation
7 SSB 5895/ E2SSB 6696 and Teacher Evaluation The “Sandbox”Classroom observationsPortfolios of student workStudents performance dataClassroomSchoolDistrictStateMay include teacher’s performance as part of a grade level, subject matter, or other instructional teamSelf-assessment and reflectionStudent survey dataTeaching artifacts – lesson plans
8 Highlights of SSB 5895Student 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 scoresIssue #2: Collective bargaining ramificationsIssue #3: Can include “team” data in individual teacher evaluationThe 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.
9 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.
10 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.
11 TPEP Professional Development Plan March 2012–May 2013Knowledge of E2SSB 6696 (2011) and SSB 5895 (2012)Assistance in Instructional Framework Choice and FamiliarityAugust 2012–September 2013Principal Observation/Rater Agreement TrainingSuperintendent/Central Office Training on the Principal Evaluation Framework and Evaluation Procedures
13 What’s New: Implementation Partnerships – To name a few… WashingtonCommunication:Key messages around…Each phase of implementationBridging with current activitiesNeeds of school districts to support professional learning to state policy makersCCSS Legislative Report (Jan. 1, 2012)Toolkits for various audiences (spring 2012)Seek resources to support implementation effortsConnections with CCSS Assessment System as it progressesCoordination & Commitment:...of state professional learning partnersCCSS State Steering Committee & WorkgroupsIdentify and/or create resources to support the Phases of implementationEstablish structures to support Phases I and II…in connection with new assessment systemPLUS…Large School DistrictsHigher EducationStatewide Education and Content Associations
14 Key next steps in Phase 2 – Spring & Summer 2012 Continue Building Statewide Awareness…CCSS Webinar Series, web resourcesCCSS Symposia for School District TeamsCCSS Overview Presentations and Support (OSPI and ESD partners)Continue Statewide Coordination and Collaboration…Convene statewide professional learning content associations to coordinate statewide PD offeringsOSPI cross-agency / initiative coordination (TPEP, Spec. Ed, early learning, etc.)Higher education coordinationWA Assoc. Colleges of Teacher Education (April)PESB Endorsement Competency Revision ProcessHECB / SBACBegin Building Statewide Capacity…In collaboration with 9 regional ESDs:CCSS Overview and Content-Specific Learning OpportunitiesEstablish CCSS District Implementation Network Pilot Project
15 Learning More… Statewide Transition & Implementation Supports OSPI CCSS WebsiteTargeted state and regional work with regional and district leadership teamsConference presentations throughout the yearSmarter Balanced Assessment Consortium information:
16 OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION State Testing UpdateThis presentation provides:an overview of the Common Core State Standards in MathematicsSupports currently available to support districts hoping to begin transitions and an overview of additional resources for the futureOFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
17 Current Statewide Summative (Student) Assessments ReadingMathematicsScienceWritingGrade 3MSPGrade 4Grade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8High SchoolHSPEEOCMSP= Measurements of Student Progress;HSPE = High School Proficiency Exams;EOC= End of Course exams
18 Proposed Summative Assessments in 2014–15 English/LAMathematicsScienceGrade 3SBACGrade 4Grade 5MSPGrade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 10HSPE ???EOC ???Algebra/GeometryEOCGrade 11SBAC=SMARTER Balanced Assessment ConsortiumMSP= Measurements of Student ProgressEOC= End of Course exams
19 Current Testing Requirements for High School Graduation by Class ReadingHSPEWritingAlgebraEOCGeometryBiologyClass of 2012XClass of 2013 and 2014(Either Algebra or Geometry)Class of 2015 and Beyond
20 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
21 Federal Rules and State Testing Education Week, October 2011 The Truth About Testing Costs By Bill TuckerOFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
22 SBAC TimelineThis 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 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 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.
23 Current Testing System Cost of COEs will jump to $10M–$20M per test per year in –15 bienniumReading and Math: Grades 3–8 and 10Science: Grades 5, 8, 10Writing: Grades 4, 7, 10Cost: $43/student/yearSBAC/CCSS Testing SystemEnglish/Language Arts and Math: Grade 3–8 and 11*Cost: $20/student/yearNOTE: 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 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 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.
24 ESEA Flexibility Update This presentation provides:an overview of the Common Core State Standards in MathematicsSupports currently available to support districts hoping to begin transitions and an overview of additional resources for the futureOFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
25 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.
26 Waiver RequirementsPrinciple 1: Career and college expectations for all students.Common Core State Standards adoptionSMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium—test ready 2014–15Principle 3: Supporting effective instruction and leadership.E2SSB 6696 and Teacher/Principal Eval Process (2011)SSB 5895 (2012)Principle 4: Reducing duplication and unnecessary burden.
27 Waiver Requirements (continued) Principle 2: State-developed differentiated recognition accountability and supportReward SchoolsHighest performing schoolsHigh-progress schoolsWill use cohort-based school improvement data when availablePriority Schools5% lowest performing Title I and Title 1-eligible schools with less than 60% graduation rateLike 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 achievementFocus Schools10% of Title I schools with highest proficiency gapsTitle I high schools with less than a 60% graduation rateMust 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)
28 Waiver Requirements (continued) Principle 2: State-developed differentiated recognition accountability and support (continued)Annual Measurable ObjectivesUsing 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
29 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)
30 Questions? For more information visits: TPEP andCCSS WebsiteSMARTER BalancedESEA Flexibility