1. Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update March 2013 Presented by: Alan Burke, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent of K-12 Education Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

2. Steering Committee 2

3. Changes in Teacher & Principal Evaluation Criteria Current Teacher Evaluation Criteria New Teacher Evaluation Criteria 1.Instructional skill 2.Classroom management 3.Professional preparation and scholarship 4.Effort toward improvement when needed 5.Handling of student discipline and attendant problems 6.Interest in teaching pupils 7.Knowledge of subject matter 1.Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement 2.Demonstrating effective teaching practices 3.Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs 4.Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum 5.Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment 6.Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning 7.Communicating with parents and school community 8.Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focus on improving instructional practice and student learning Current Principal Evaluation Criteria New Principal Evaluation Criteria 1.Knowledge of, experience in and training in recognizing good professional performance, capabilities and development 2.School administration and management 3.School finance 4.Professional preparation and scholarship 5.Effort toward improvement when needed 6.Interest in pupils, employees, patrons and subjects taught in school 7.Leadership 8.Ability and performance of evaluation of school personnel 1.Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff 2.Providing for school safety 3.Leads development, implementation and evaluation of a data-driven plan for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements 4.Assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessment with state and local district learning goals 5.Monitoring, assisting and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices 6.Managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities 7.Partnering with the school community to promote student learning 8.Demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap 3

4. 4

5. “Certificated Classroom Teacher” Definition Designed for “classroom teachers”. Built around the criteria in RCW. Teachers who provide academically-focused instruction to students may be considered in the new evaluation system. Districts are encouraged to review the criteria and instructional frameworks for best fit. Principals or assistant principals who evaluate teachers are subject to the leadership frameworks. 5

6. Classroom Teacher Classroom Teachers Includes: Content Area Special Education Music PE Art May Include: Teacher-Librarians Instructional Coaches Non-Classroom Teachers ESA School Counselors, SLP, OT, PT, School Nurses Districts may consider creating four- tiered systems for non-classroom teachers, but are advised to consider the design and implementation of new evaluation systems are considerable. Staff who provide academically -focused instruction to students 6

7. Implementation Schedule Both E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895 have an implementation phase in of 2013-14. Steering committee recommends all districts consider moving to the new evaluation criteria for all classroom teachers and principals in 2013-14, with some classroom teachers on the focused and some on the comprehensive. ESSB 5895 requires provisional or probationary teachers and principals with fewer than 3 years of experience, unsatisfactory performance, or new to the district to be transitioned first. Nothing prevents earlier transition. All districts must begin implementation in 2013-14 school year and be fully implemented by 2015-16. Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory Delineation: Years 1-5 between 1 and 2 Years 5+ between 2 and 3 2 years in a row or 2 out of 3 = probation leading to non-renewal Two consecutive 1 ratings results in discharge 7

8. Comprehensive Evaluation Teachers Assesses all 8 evaluation criteria. All criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation rating and all are equally weighted. Student Growth Rubrics embedded in Criterion. (3, 6, 8 for teachers; 3, 5, 8 for principals) All provisional classroom teachers and any classroom teacher not on level 3 or level 4 receive comprehensive evaluation. Requires observations: All classroom teachers shall receive a comprehensive summative evaluation at least once every four years. Minimum of two, totaling 60 minutes 3 rd year provisional, a minimum of three, totaling 90 minutes 8

9. Evaluation Summative Scoring Process Criteria 2 Criteria 1 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Frameworks + Student Growth Rubrics Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks Observation Artifacts Other evidence relevant to the frameworks State determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory District determined process Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory 9

10. The RAW Score Model Teaching Criteria * Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubrics Overall Criterion Scores Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement3 Criterion 2: Demonstrating effective teaching practices4 *Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs 3 Criterion 4: Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum2 Criterion 5: Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment3 *Criterion 6: Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning2 Criterion 7: Communicating and collaborating with parents and school community3 *Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning 2 Total Summative Score22 Evaluators place teachers into preliminary summative rating categories based on score bands. As illustrated above, this teacher would receive a preliminary overall summative rating of Proficient. OSPI Approved Summative Scoring Band 8-1415-2122-2829-32 1 Unsatisfactory 2 Basic 3 Proficient 4 Distinguished 10

11. Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher  A teacher’s criterion scores are established using both the district’s selected instructional framework and Washington State student growth rubrics.  The Summative Criteria Score is the sum of the eight criterion scores and is determined by the OSPI-approved scoring band.  The Student Growth Impact Rating is generated by combining the five student growth rubric components from criteria 3, 6, and 8, and is determined by the OSPI- approved scoring band.  Teachers with a “Distinguished” Summative Criteria Score and a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating cannot be rated higher than “Proficient.”  A “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating triggers a student growth inquiry regardless of Summative Criteria Score. Criterion 1: Expectations = Criterion 1 score Criterion 2: Instruction = Criterion 2 score Criterion 3: Differentiation = Criterion 3 score Criterion 4: Content Knowledge = Criterion 4 score Criterion 6: Assessment = Criterion 6 score Criterion 7: Families and Community = Criterion 7 score Final Summative Score The sum of all eight criterion scores 8 – 1415 – 2122 – 2829 – 32 UBPD* * A teacher with a summative rating of “D”, and a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating will receive a summative rating of “P”. Danielson Rubric Components (each scored 1 – 4) Student Growth Component Instructional and Professional Practice Component Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Student Growth Impact Rating The sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3, 6, and 8 5 – 1213 – 1718 – 20 Low*AverageHigh * A score of “1” in any of the student growth components results in a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating. Criterion 5: Learning Environment = Criterion 5 score + Evidence  Observable evidence  Evidence outside of a classroom observation  Authentic artifacts of teaching and learning  Student growth goals and outcomes  Evidence of professional practice -------------------------------- Each criterion gets a final score that must be reported as U, B, P, or D (U=1 B=2 P=3 D=4) Criterion 8: Professional Practice = Criterion 8 score 11

12. Focused Evaluation Certificated Classroom Teachers Includes an assessment of one of the eight criterion. Student Growth Rubrics from one of the three criterion If the choice is Criterion 3,6, or 8; their accompanying student growth rubrics will be used. If the choices is Criterion 1,2,4,5,7, the accompanying student growth rubrics from Criterion 3 or 6 will be used. The selection must be approved by the teacher ‘s evaluator. A focused evaluation must be performed in any year that a comprehensive evaluation is not scheduled. Requires the same observation protocol as for comprehensive evaluations. A “basic” focused rating does start the two basic rankings = probation timeline. 12

13. Focused Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher  The focused evaluation is meant for proficient and distinguished educators and its purpose is to support professional growth.  If a non-provisional teacher has received a “satisfactory” on his/her last four evaluations, or a “proficient” or “distinguished” once they have transitioned to the new system, the teacher is eligible for a focused evaluation three out of every four years.  One of the eight criteria must be assessed in every year that a comprehensive is not required.  The final criterion score will be considered the final summative score. Danielson Rubric Components (each scored 1 – 4) Student Growth Component Instructional and Professional Practice Component Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Criterion 3, 6, or 8 Criterion 1, 2, 4, 5, or 7 + Criterion 3 or 6 SG components + Criterion 3: Differentiation Criterion 5: Learning Environment Criterion 6: Assessment + Final Criterion Score = Final Summative Score U, B, P, or D Choose … Or… The focused evaluation will include the student growth rubrics of the selected criterion. If criterion 3, 6, or 8 is selected, evaluators will use the accompanying student growth rubrics. If criterion 1, 2, 4, 5, or 7 is selected, evaluators will use criterion 3 or 6 student growth rubrics. While there is no student growth impact rating, a rating of “1” on any student growth rubric row triggers a student growth inquiry. Evidence  Observable evidence  Evidence outside of a classroom observation  Authentic artifacts of teaching and learning  Student growth goals and outcomes  Evidence of professional practice -------------------------------- The criterion gets a final score that must be reported as U, B, P, or D (U=1 B=2 P=3 D=4) Evidence  Observable evidence  Evidence outside of a classroom observation  Authentic artifacts of teaching and learning  Student growth goals and outcomes  Evidence of professional practice -------------------------------- The criterion gets a final score that must be reported as U, B, P, or D (U=1 B=2 P=3 D=4) Final Criterion Score = Final Summative Score U, B, P, or D + 13

14. ESSB 5895 Establishes New Definitions Around Student Growth Measures 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. 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 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 means the change in student achievement between two points in time. Both E2SSB 6696 and ESSB 5895 contain language around student growth including: Changes… 14

15. 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 Rubrics are embedded into criteria but are disaggregated after calculating final ratings. 15

16. ESEA Waiver and Student Growth USED favors a system where student growth is a fixed percentage of a teacher’s final evaluation. They are consistently behind the times and haven’t embraced the multiple measures approach highlighted in the Gates-funded MET Study. WA was granted a 2012-13 conditional waiver; we are in consultation with the USED regarding extending the waiver to 2013-14. The State Board of Education is preparing a new accountability index for 2014-15, and needs USED approval. 16

17. Student Growth Teacher Rubric Language Student Growth Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs. Student Growth 3.1: Establish Student Growth Goal(s) UnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished Does not establish student growth goals or establishes inappropriate goals for subgroups of students not reaching full learning potential. Goals do not identify multiple, high- quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Establishes appropriate student growth goals for subgroups of students not reaching full learning potential. Goals do not identify multiple, high- quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Establishes appropriate student growth goals for subgroups of students not reaching full learning potential. Goals identify multiple, high-quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Establishes appropriate student growth goals for subgroups of students not reaching full potential in collaboration with students, parents, and other school staff. Goals identify multiple, high- quality sources of data to monitor, adjust, and evaluate achievement of goals. Student Growth 3.2: Achievement of Student Growth Goal(s) UnsatisfactoryBasicProficientDistinguished Growth or achievement data from at least two points in time shows no evidence of growth for most students. Multiple sources of growth or achievement data from at least two points in time show some evidence of growth for some students. Multiple sources of growth or achievement data from at least two points in time show clear evidence of growth for most students. Multiple sources of growth or achievement data from at least two points in time show evidence of high growth for all or nearly all students. 17

18. Using District, School, and Classroom-based Data (Teachers) Five Student Growth Criteria 3.1 Establish Student Growth Goals Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/ opportunity gap) 3.2 Achievement of Student Growth Goals Re: individual or subgroups of students (achievement/ opportunity gap) 6.1 Establish Student Growth Goals using Multiple Student Data Elements Re: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to school and district goals 6.2 Achievement of Student Growth Goals Re: whole class based on grade-level standards and aligned to school and district goals 8.1 Establish Team Student Growth Goals Re: Teacher as part of a grade-level, content area, or other school/district team 18

19. Student Growth Rubric and Rating (Teachers Only) Student GrowthGoal-Setting Score Based on Rubric Student Growth* Score Based on Rubric Overall Student Growth Criterion Score Criterion 332**5 Criterion 622**4 Criterion 82 N/A 2 Student Growth Score7411 Evaluators place teachers into summative rating categories based on score bands. As illustrated above, this teacher would receive a low student growth rating. * Must include a minimum of two student growth measures (e.g., state-, district-, school-, and classroom-based measures). **A student growth score of 1 in any of the student growth rubrics will result in a Low growth rating. *** For teachers on a focused evaluation, any cell with a score of 1 will result in a low rating; a rating above 1 in all cells will result in an adequate rate. OSPI Approved Student Growth Impact Rating Scoring Band 5-1213-1718-20 LowAverageHigh 19

20. Summative Rating & Impact on Student Learning Matrix Summative Rating Distinguished Proficient Rating Student Growth Inquiry Distinguished Rating Proficient Proficient Rating Student Growth Inquiry Proficient Rating Basic Basic Rating Student Growth Inquiry Basic Rating Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Rating Plan of Improvement Consequences as a result of Intersection between Summative Rating and Impact on Student Learning Rating LowAverageHigh Impact on Student Learning 20

21. Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Classroom Teacher  A teacher’s criterion scores are established using both the district’s selected instructional framework and Washington State student growth rubrics.  The Summative Criteria Score is the sum of the eight criterion scores and is determined by the OSPI-approved scoring band.  The Student Growth Impact Rating is generated by combining the five student growth rubric components from criteria 3, 6, and 8, and is determined by the OSPI- approved scoring band.  Teachers with a “Distinguished” Summative Criteria Score and a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating cannot be rated higher than “Proficient.”  A “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating triggers a student growth inquiry regardless of Summative Criteria Score. Criterion 1: Expectations = Criterion 1 score Criterion 2: Instruction = Criterion 2 score Criterion 3: Differentiation = Criterion 3 score Criterion 4: Content Knowledge = Criterion 4 score Criterion 6: Assessment = Criterion 6 score Criterion 7: Families and Community = Criterion 7 score Final Summative Score The sum of all eight criterion scores 8 – 1415 – 2122 – 2829 – 32 UBPD* * A teacher with a summative rating of “D”, and a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating will receive a summative rating of “P”. Danielson Rubric Components (each scored 1 – 4) Student Growth Component Instructional and Professional Practice Component Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Student Growth Impact Rating The sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3, 6, and 8 5 – 1213 – 1718 – 20 Low*AverageHigh * A score of “1” in any of the student growth components results in a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating. Criterion 5: Learning Environment = Criterion 5 score + Evidence  Observable evidence  Evidence outside of a classroom observation  Authentic artifacts of teaching and learning  Student growth goals and outcomes  Evidence of professional practice -------------------------------- Each criterion gets a final score that must be reported as U, B, P, or D (U=1 B=2 P=3 D=4) Criterion 8: Professional Practice = Criterion 8 score 21

22. Student Growth Inquiry Consequences: Within two months of receiving the low student growth score or at the beginning of the following school year, whichever is later, one or more of the following must be initiated by the evaluator: Triangulate student growth measure with other evidence (including observation, artifacts and student evidence) and additional levels of student growth based on classroom, school, district and state-based tools; Examine extenuating circumstances possibly including: goal setting process/expectations, student attendance, and curriculum/assessment alignment; Schedule monthly conferences with the teacher to discuss/revise goals, progress toward meeting goals, and best practices; and/or Create and implement a professional development plan to address student growth areas. 22

23. Expectations of Practice Evaluation Systems Principals Carrying the Load 23

24. 24

25. Student Growth Data Examples State-Based Tools e.g., MSP, HSPE, EOCs, SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) District-Based Tools e.g., MAP, AIMS Web, SBAC interim, district writing assessments, fluency checks, RBAs, MBAs School-Based Tools e.g., content area, grade-level or other school team assessments Classroom-Based Tools Applies to all teachers 25

26. SBAC: A Balanced Assessment System School Year Last 12 weeks of the year* DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative tools, processes and exemplars; released items and tasks; model curriculum units; educator training; professional development tools and resources; scorer training modules; and teacher collaboration tools. English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-8 and High School Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks Scope, sequence, number and timing of interim assessments locally determined *Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions. PERFORMANCE TASKS ELA/Literacy Mathematics Re-take option COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TESTS ELA/Literacy Mathematics Optional Interim Assessment Optional Interim Assessment 26

27. Use of Student Growth Data Using State-Based Tools State-Based Data OSPI will make available: Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) Available at end of 2013-14 so could be used 2014-15 Follow students from year to year based on average growth compared to academic peers (i.e., those who scored the same on last year’s test) For best use requires exams every year Doesn’t require use of specific tests Requires careful attribution at a district-level Vertical Scaling Available with SBAC (not with MSP/HSPE) Allows students in Grades 3-8 to be ranked across a vertical scale—like current MAP tests Only works with SBAC Requires exams each year 27

28. Use of Student Growth Data Using State-Based tools (cont.) Upshot: State-based tools have limited applicability Only teachers in Grades 4–8 with ELA or math courses can use summative testing as part of their evaluation (HS math teachers with students in 9 th grade Algebra or 10 th grade Geometry could be included) Since evaluations are due in early May and SGP or vertically-scaled scores aren’t available until Sept. 1, analysis will always be one year behind Teacher attribution is challenging at all levels: Middle school: CEDARS assigns middle school students to individual classes Elementary: CEDARS assigns elementary students exclusively to a homeroom teacher 28

29. SGPs - Where We Are Winter 2012: Currently in the process of calculating 2012 SGPs (have 2011 SGPs). This analysis will result in: o Student-level SGPs o School, district, and subgroup aggregates (median growth percentiles) March 2013: SGPs from 2011 & 2012 will be provided to districts for Grades 4–8 and high school (reading and math MSP, HSPE, and EOC) * October 2013: SGPs from 2013 provided to districts October 2014: SGPs from 2014 provided to districts (could use in 2014–15 evaluations) October 2015: SGPs from 2015 (Smarter Balanced) provided to districts (could use in 2015–16 evaluations) *High school SGPs will be available for consecutive year tests (e.g., 8 th MSP, 9 th Algebra 1, 10 th Geometry) 29

30. SBAC Career and College-Readiness Trajectory: Vertically Scaled 30

31. State Testing Data Schedule 2013–14 (Available 9/1/2014) 2014–15 (Available 9/1/2015) 2015–16 (Available 9/1/2016) SGPs* (MSP, HSPE) (SBAC) (SBAC) Vertically Scaled Score (SBAC) (SBAC) Can be used in evaluations SGPs SGPs Vertically-scaled scores 31 * 2011, 2012, and 2013 SGPs will be made available to districts.

32. Comprehensive Evaluation – Certificated Principal or Assistant Principal  A principal’s criterion scores are established using both the district’s selected leadership framework and Washington State student growth rubrics.  The Summative Criteria Score is the sum of the eight criterion scores and is determined by the OSPI-approved scoring band.  The Student Growth Impact Rating is generated by combining the three student growth rubric components from criteria 3, 5, and 8, and is determined by the OSPI- approved scoring band.  Principals with a “Distinguished” Summative Criteria Score and a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating cannot be rated higher than “Proficient.”  A “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating triggers a student growth inquiry regardless of the Summative Criteria Score. Criterion 1: Culture = Criterion 1 score Criterion 2: School Safety = Criterion 2 score Criterion 3: Data = Criterion 3 score Criterion 4: Curriculum = Criterion 4 score Criterion 6: Resources = Criterion 6 score Criterion 7: Communities = Criterion 7 score Final Summative Score The sum of all eight criterion scores 8 – 1415 – 2122 – 2829 – 32 UBPD* * A teacher with a summative rating of “D”, and a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating will receive a summative rating of “P”. AWSP Rubric Components (each scored 1 – 4) Student Growth Component Leadership Practice Component Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Student Growth Impact Rating The sum of all five student growth components from criteria 3.4, 5.2, and 8.3 3-56-910-12 Low*AverageHigh * A score of “1” in any of the student growth components results in a “Low” Student Growth Impact Rating. Criterion 5: Instruction = Criterion 5 score + Evidence  Observable evidence  Evidence outside of a school observation  Authentic artifacts of leading  Student growth outcomes  Evidence of professional practice -------------------------------- Each criterion gets a final score that must be reported as U, B, P, or D (U=1 B=2 P=3 D=4) Criterion 8: Closing the Gap = Criterion 8 score 32

33. Focused Evaluation – Certificated Principal or Assistant Principal  The focused evaluation is meant for proficient and distinguished educators and its purpose is to support professional growth.  One of the eight criteria must be assessed in every year that a comprehensive is not required.  The final criterion score will be considered the final summative score.  “Due to the importance of instructional leadership and assuring rater agreement among evaluators, particularly those evaluating teacher performance, school districts are encouraged to conduct comprehensive summative evaluations of principal performance on an annual basis.” RCW 28A.405.100 AWSP Rubric Components (each scored 1 – 4) Student Growth Component Leadership Practice Component Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Criterion 3, 5, or 8 Criterion 1, 2, 4, 6, or 7 + 3.4, 5.2 or 8.3 SG components + Criterion 3: Data Preliminary score from Rubric Criterion 2: School Safety Preliminary score from rubric Criterion 3: Data + Final Criterion Score = Final Summative Score U, B, P, or D Choose … Or…  The focused evaluation will include the student growth rubrics of the selected criterion. If criterion 3, 5, or 8 is selected, evaluators will use the accompanying student growth rubrics.  If criterion 1, 2, 4, 6, or 7 is selected, evaluators will use 3.4, 5.2 or 8.3 student growth rubrics.  While there is no student growth impact rating, a rating of “1” on the student growth rubric row triggers a student growth inquiry. Evidence  Observable evidence  Evidence outside of a school observation  Authentic artifacts of leading  Student growth outcomes  Evidence of professional practice -------------------------------- The criterion gets a final score that must be reported as U, B, P, or D (U=1 B=2 P=3 D=4) Evidence  Observable evidence  Evidence outside of a school observation  Authentic artifacts of leading  Student growth outcomes  Evidence of professional practice -------------------------------- The criterion gets a final score that must be reported as U, B, P, or D (U=1 B=2 P=3 D=4) Final Criterion Score = Final Summative Score U, B, P, or D + 33

34. Bargaining Framework RCWs WACs/Rules OSPI Guidance Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Raw Score Methodology Who? Is in the new system? What? Evidence will count for each criteria? How much? Evidence will be required and what is the quality? FLEXIBILITY IS THE KEY! 34

35. Examples of Evidence Required Possible –Connected to Frameworks Observations Formal (at least two for a total of 60 minutes), announced / unannounced Student Growth Goal Setting & Evidence of Student Learning Classroom School District State Self-assessment Goal setting Instructional & Professional Practice Additional observations Walk through, PLC, Family and Community Artifacts Lesson plans Student work Team/department projects/data Surveys Student Parent Two-way parent contact Student discipline logs Other accomplishments 35

36. Calibration is IMPORTANT! Districts must provide calibration training for principals and administrators (maximize rater agreement) on: Observation of Teaching and Leadership Practice Student Growth Goal Setting and Use of Measures/Evidence of Student Learning And suggested…. Goal setting, Self-assessment, Artifacts and Other Evidence Related to Frameworks Overall Expectations of Teacher and Leader Professional Responsibilities 36

37. Next Steps Bargain / discuss / watch * Rater agreement strategy Resolve current probationary cases Track TPEP Reforms McCleary and Senate/House/Governor ESEA Flexibility Waiver * Legislative action on ESSB 5895 is possible this session. 37

38. Questions? 38

39. 39 Thank you!