Teacher/Principal Evaluation Program
LanguagesA-Z IndexPrinter Friendly Image
Search
 



General Questions
tpep@k12.wa.us
360-725-6430

Sue Anderson, Program Director
sue.anderson@k12.wa.us
360-725-6116

 

The Teacher/Principal Evaluation Program

Frequently Asked Questions

The TPEP Steering Committee recommends that before consulting the FAQs on this website, users carefully read their collective bargaining agreements for guidance.

 


Background

Why has Washington changed the evaluation laws for certificated classroom teachers and certificated principals and assistant principals?
The Washington State Legislature passed E2SSB 6696 in 2010 that created the Teacher and Principal Evaluation Pilot (TPEP) and TPEP Steering Committee. The intent was to develop a standards-based system that would be an important tool for teacher and principal growth as well as evaluation.

What is the TPEP Steering Committee?
The TPEP Steering Committee was formed per E2SSB 6696 in July, 2010. The legislation calls for

“OSPI, in collaboration with state associations representing teachers, principals, administrators, and parents”

to oversee the work of the TPEP pilots. In ESSB 5895, school board members were added and the legislation notes that this group shall be called “the steering committee.” The original five TPEP Steering Committee organizations (OSPI, WEA, AWSP, WASA, and WSPTA) were joined by WSSDA in May, 2011.

How was the revised evaluation system developed?
The revised evaluation system was developed by the nine pilot sites and the TPEP Steering Committee. The experience and voice of the pilot site practitioners was vitally important in developing rubrics, rules, and procedures for the revised system.

Have there been any updates to the original 2010 legislation?
Yes, Changes to WAC 392-191A are finalized and in effect. They include changes to the Focused evaluations process and to the definition of “observation”, as well as some language clarification. Districts have the choice to implement the changes to the Focused evaluation (392-191A-120 and 190) in 2016-17 or 2017-18. Changes to all other sections are effective for the 2016-17 school year. During the 2012 legislative session, educator evaluation was taken up once more by the legislature and ESSB 5895, passed and was signed into law June 7, 2012. ESSB 5895 amended RCW 28A.405.100

What policies are set at the state level and what flexibility do districts have?
The State vs Local Decisions document identifies the various aspects of the revised evaluation system and defines the state and local decision-making process.


back to top

 


Employee Groups

What employee groups should be considered in the revised evaluation system?
The revised evaluation system covers certificated classroom teachers and certificated principals and assistant principals.

What are the definitions of a “certificated classroom teacher?”
WAC 392-191A-030 states:

“Certificated classroom teacher” and “teacher” mean a certificated employee who provides academically-focused instruction to students and holds one or more of the certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79A-140 (1) through (3) and (6)(a) through (e) and (g).

This includes holders of the following certificates:

  • Residency, professional, continuing, and standard teaching certificates, including teacher exchange permits as provided in WAC 181-79A-270
  • Career and technical
  • First people's language/culture
  • Conditional certificate
  • Substitute certificate
  • Emergency certificate
  • Emergency substitute certificate
  • Nonimmigrant alien exchange teacher

Who is included in “certificated classroom teachers?”
The revised evaluation system is built around the criteria in RCW 28A.405.100; reviewing the criteria and instructional frameworks is advised. A certificated employee who is providing academically focused instruction to students, regardless of the size of the class, should be considered a “classroom teacher.” Classroom teachers typically include:

  • Core Content Area (English L/A, Mathematics, Science, History/Social Studies)
  • Physical Education
  • Music
  • Art
  • Special Education
  • Other electives

Certificated classroom teachers may also include librarians and instructional coaches/TOSAs, if they provide academically-focused instruction to students.

Note: The above list provides some examples and is not a definitive list that includes every possible subject or elective area.

What does it mean to provide “academically focused instruction to students?”
“Academically focused” means that the teacher is responsible for teaching content that helps lead students to college or career using learning standards that guide instruction and specify outcomes for student learning.

Should teachers who teach only part-time, or only part of whose job would fit under the definition of “classroom teacher” cited above, be evaluated under TPEP?
An employee whose only role is teaching should be evaluated under TPEP regardless of FTE.

An employee should be evaluated in their main role as defined in their contract or job description. If their secondary role is teaching, use the district's selected instructional framework to give feedback for growth purposes.

Are there certain teaching positions that should not be evaluated under TPEP?
Yes, there are. In general, the test for this is three-pronged. If the teacher does all three of the following, then s/he should be evaluated under TPEP:

  • Plans or modifies instruction;
  • Instructs students; and
  • Monitors student progress

There are limited exceptions to this. Please see the guidance developed by the framework authors for your instructional framework at: http://k12.wa.us/TPEP/Frameworks/OSPI_Learning_Environments.pdf  There is additional guidance provided for the specific frameworks; see the webpage for that specific framework linked from this site: http://k12.wa.us/TPEP/Frameworks/default.aspx

Teachers whose students have severe or multiple disabilities may have difficulty providing evidence of practice on several criteria. Should they still be evaluated under TPEP?
Districts have discretion to use common sense in making decisions in cases like this. When it is not possible for a teacher to give evidence of practice, or evidence of practice at the proficient or distinguished level is not observable because of the students' disabilities, it would be sensible for the evaluator and the teacher to decide together on which parts of the framework are viable and which are not, and determine a suitable process for setting goals and collecting evidence. On rare occasions, a suitable process may extend outside the TPEP structure.

What is the definition of “certificated principal and assistant principal?”
WAC 392-191A-030 states:

“Certificated principal,” “principal” and “assistant principal” mean a person who is employed to supervise the operation and management of a school as provided by RCW 28A.400.100 and holds certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79A-140 (4)(a) or (6)(h).

Who is included in “assistant principals?”
The evaluation system is designed for certificated principals and assistant principals. Because this system is built around the criteria in RCW 28A.405.100, reviewing the leadership criteria and frameworks to determine whether assigned duties fit the definition. Pay careful attention to those in OSPI Duty Root 25 (Other School Admin), like athletic directors, non-traditional assistant principals, and dean positions, because their duties may or may not qualify them for evaluation in TPEP.

What is the definition for certificated support personnel (ESAs: Counselors, Speech/Language Pathologists, Occupational Therapists, School Psychologists, Physical Therapists, School Nurses, and Social Workers)?
WAC 392-191A-030 states: “Certificated support personnel” and “certificate support person” means a certificated employee who provides services to students and holds one or more of the educational staff associate certificates pursuant to WAC 181-79A-140(5).

Are ESAs included in the revised evaluation system?
Generally speaking, an ESA is not considered a “certificated classroom teacher” and the revised criteria and frameworks were not designed with their job responsibilities in mind. Since the revised evaluation system is based on skills, knowledge, and dispositions related to a specific job, the frameworks associated with classroom teachers may not be relevant for many ESA positions.

Districts may create four-tiered systems for any employee group not on the revised system for certificated teachers and principals (ESAs, classified staff, etc.), but are advised to consider the design and implementation of the revised evaluation system first and foremost.

Is the fact that a teacher does not assign grades to students a reason for that teacher to not be part of the revised teacher evaluation process?
Many teachers monitor or assess student progress without assigning grades to students. This would not be a sufficient reason to exclude the teacher from being part of the revised teacher evaluation system. Teachers who plan instruction, provide instruction, and monitor/assess student learning should be on the revised teacher evaluation.


back to top

 


Implementation

How will a school board make informed decisions about the details of the evaluation system in order to adopt a schedule for implementation?

The law stipulates that

“all classroom teachers are evaluated under the revised revised system no later than 2015–16,”

but does not require that all classroom teachers have a Comprehensive evaluation by 2015–16.

What authority do school boards have in the revised evaluation system?
According to the legislation, the two primary responsibilities school directors have are to establish their districts’ evaluative criteria (containing, at a minimum, the criteria established by OSPI) and a district implementation schedule. The transition to the revised system was to have been completed during the 2015-16 school year.

What determines whether certificated classroom teacher, principals and assistant principals begin with a Focused or a Comprehensive evaluation?
The TPEP Steering Committee recommended that all certificated classroom teachers, principals, and assistant principals are evaluated on either a Comprehensive or focused evaluation using the revised state criteria beginning in 2013–14 and that all classroom teachers have a Comprehensive evaluation by the end of the 2016–17 school year.

Districts have locally determined an implementation schedule based on the number of staff requiring a Comprehensive evaluation from the list above.

Keep in mind that the intent of Focused evaluation is for proficient or distinguished practitioners (score of 3 or 4). Early in implementation, there was not a defined baseline for performance on the revised criteria, but the TPEP Steering Committee expected that educators identified for a focused evaluation have four years of satisfactory evaluations on the district’s previous system. Once educators have been in the revised system for at least one year, RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(i) states:

“In the years when a comprehensive summative evaluation is not required, classroom teachers and principals who received a comprehensive evaluation performance rating of level 3 or above in the previous school year are required to complete a focused evaluation.”

CERTIFICATED PRINCIPALS AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS
RCW 28A.405.100(12)(b)(ii) provides that

“[p]rincipals in the first three consecutive school years of employment as a principal”
must receive an
“annual comprehensive summative evaluation”.

During that time, principals cannot be placed on a Focused evaluation. The statute doesn’t specifically mention assistant principals, but WAC 392-191A. provides that assistant principals are subject to the state mandated evaluation system.

RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(v) further suggests that districts evaluate principals and assistant principals with a Comprehensive evaluation annually.

“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.”

While not a requirement, the TPEP Steering Committee strongly encourages districts to consider the implications of using a Focused evaluation with principals, especially in the early implementation years.


back to top

 


Evaluation Components

How were the revised teacher and principal evaluation criteria developed?
The revised teacher and principal criteria were drafted by the governor’s office and the two primary organizations representing teachers and principals in 2010 as part of E2SSB 6696.

What are the criteria definitions?
The definitions are embedded in WAC 392-191A and can also be found at: Criteria definitions.

What is a Comprehensive evaluation?
A comprehensive evaluation assesses all eight evaluation criteria and each of the criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. RCW 28A.405.100(12)(a). See the Comprehensive Scoring Diagrams listed under the link for each framework for more details.

What is a Focused evaluation?
cused evaluation includes an assessment of one of the eight criteria selected for a performance rating plus professional and student growth activities specifically linked to the selected criterion RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(i)).

WACS 392-191A-120 and 392-191A-190 (Conduct of the Focused evaluation for certificated classroom teachers/principals) describes the process: The score from the Comprehensive evaluation is carried through the Focused evaluation period for teachers and principals who have completed the Comprehensive evaluation have received a Level 3 (proficient) or Level 4 (distinguished) and have been moved to the Focused evaluation.

This process is intended to support teachers and principals in addressing areas of challenge during the Focused evaluation process.

With the Focused evaluation score being pre-determined by the most recent year’s Comprehensive score, must evaluatees still produce evidence and track progress, and set and measure student growth goals?
Yes. The process for participating in the evaluation is the same; what has changed is the determination of the score at the end of the year. Highlighted rubrics or other narrative descriptions of practice, possibly as part of a professional growth plan for the coming school year, are possible ways to capture progress toward the goal of proficient or distinguished practice.

What if an evaluatee’s performance in a Focused year is Level 4, but their prior Comprehensive score was a 3? Must they receive a level 3 summative score?
No. The intent of this rule change is to incentivize teachers and principals to choose challenging criteria for their Focused evaluation, without fear of the consequences of a summative Basic rating. A Level 4 performance in a Focused evaluation year could trump the prior level 3 summative score on the most recent Comprehensive evaluation - for that year only.

What is the process for determining whether someone is on a Comprehensive or a Focused evaluation?

Either a Comprehensive or a Focused is required every year. A Comprehensive is required at least once every four years for both teachers and principals. In the years when a Comprehensive is not required, teachers who received a level 3 or 4 on a Comprehensive in the previous year may be on Focused.

According to RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(iv), either the evaluator or the evaluatee may initiate the move to a Comprehensive evaluation before the four-year cycle has been completed. This must happen in writing by December 15 for the current school year. The steering committee recommends that a local process for this transfer be established prior to implementation.

A teacher on provisional status (first three years of teaching, or first two with Superintendent approval) must be on a Comprehensive evaluation. An educator with two or more years of successful teaching in a Washington school district who moves to a new district begins a new four-year cycle, starting with a Comprehensive evaluation during that provisional status year. See the section on “Provisional Status” for additional information.

Who approves the criterion selected for a Focused evaluation?
On a Focused evaluation, the selected criterion must be approved by the evaluator for teachers and for principals (WAC 392-191A-120 and 190).

What are the OSPI approved instructional and leadership frameworks?
Instructional

  • CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric 3.0
  • Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (2011)
  • Marzano’s Teacher Evaluation Model

Leadership

  • The AWSP Leadership Framework

What is the OSPI process for “minor modifications and adaptations” to the instructional or leadership frameworks?
The law requires that OSPI

“establish a process for approving minor modifications or adaptations to a preferred instructional [or leadership] framework that may be proposed by a school district.”

Districts proposing a change must submit their request to OSPI by April 15 of the previous year. Please read Minor Modifications to Instructional or Leadership Frameworks for more information and instructions.

Districts may add to the critical attributes (Danielson), possible observables (CEL 5D’s) and possible evidence (Marzano and AWSP) established by the framework authors.

When do districts need to let OSPI know which framework they’re using?
Districts report any changes to their instructional framework selection in the annual School Employee Evaluation Survey. Districts are required to post their framework choices somewhere on their district website. (RCW 28A.405.100(2)(e)). OSPI posts a list of district framework selections on the website.

Do districts need to evaluate teachers on all eight criteria and use all the components within each framework?
OSPI selected the three research-based frameworks as required by law RCW 28A.405.100(2)(e) and have worked closely with the framework authors. OSPI and the TPEP Steering Committee strongly recommend that districts use all evaluation rubrics to judge the performance of the certificated classroom teacher, principal, or assistant principal. Not using the entire framework for the purposes of a Comprehensive evaluation or all the components/indicators in a Focused evaluation will compromise the validity of the frameworks. In addition, the state is expecting the data provided to OSPI in the annual State Educator Evaluation Survey to use all eight criteria, the entire framework, and student growth rubrics in calculating summative scores.

What is the role of evidence in the revised system?
Evidence is observed practice, products, or results of the work of a certificated classroom teacher or principal that demonstrates knowledge and skills with respect to the framework and rubric.

OBSERVATION: Required for all Comprehensive evaluations; for Focused evaluations, observation is required

“if the evaluation of the certificated classroom teacher includes an assessment of a criterion that requires observation…”

WAC 392-191A-030 defines observation as the gathering of evidence made through classroom or worksite visits, or other visits, work samples, or conversations that allow for the gathering of evidence of the performance of assigned duties for the purpose of examining evidence over time against the instructional or leadership framework rubrics pursuant to this section.

For teachers, most framework components are observable either in the classroom or elsewhere in context of their work. When the criterion selected for a Focused evaluation does not relate directly to classroom instruction, it may be more appropriate for the observation to take place in a community setting (criterion 7) or in the course of professional duties (criterion 8). In cases where a classroom observation is not appropriate for gathering evidence for the criterion of focus, documentation of observations can occur after each observation or after a series of observations (RCW 28A.405.100(3)(a).)

New employees must be observed early in the year. RCW 28A.405.100 states that

“New employees shall be observed at least once for a total observation time of thirty minutes during the first ninety calendar days of their employment period.”

Although it is appropriate and useful to conduct a midyear status check, keep in mind there is no summative score provided at the conclusion of that first observation for new employees; summative scoring occurs near the end of the school year when a full picture of performance is available.

STUDENT GROWTH: Required for all. See WAC 392-191A and summative scoring information. If the criterion selected for a Focused evaluation does not contain student growth rubrics, the evaluatee selects student growth goals from criterion 3 or 6 for teachers or criterion 3.5, 5.5, or 8.3 for principals and assistant principals.

PERCEPTION DATA: Optional local decision. See RCW 28A.405.100(2)(g) and RCW 28A.405.100(6)(g).

Who can evaluate a certificated classroom teacher?
RCW 28A.405.100 states:

“it shall be the responsibility of a principal or his or her designee to evaluate all certificated personnel in his or her school.”

Prior to the first observation, evaluators must have training on the

“revised systems to maximize rater agreement.”

The TPEP Steering Committee has defined this as the two-day, Stage I framework training. Stage II instructional framework training may be completed over the course of the first year as an evaluator.

What happens to the evaluation process when an educator departs in the middle of the school year?
If the departure is planned, the evaluator and evaluatee should come to mutual agreement about a timeline for completing observations and a summative conference. If not all elements of the framework have adequate evidence to be scored, the reason for any omission should be noted on the summative form.

If the departure is unplanned and it is not possible to complete an evaluation, document the facts.

What do we do with an educator who is hired mid-year?
Long-term substitutes are not required to be evaluated on the revised system. Local CBAs may provide more specific guidance.

Any educator new to the district and hired on a regular contract is provisional, so must be evaluated using the Comprehensive format. Local human resource policies might address a variety of hiring scenarios. Districts are encouraged to use common sense when hiring in the last quarter of the year.

Is the fact that a teacher does not assign grades to students a reason for that teacher to not be part of the revised teacher evaluation process?
Many teachers monitor or assess student progress without assigning grades to students. This would not be a sufficient reason to exclude the teacher from being part of the revised teacher evaluation system. Teachers who plan instruction, provide instruction, and monitor/assess student learning should be on the revised teacher evaluation.


back to top

 


Student Growth

What is the definition of student growth?
RCW 28A.405.100 defines student growth as the

“change in student achievement between two points in time.”

What measures can be used to determine student growth?
WAC 392-191A-080 states: “More than one measure of student growth data must be used in scoring the student growth rubrics.” Measures include:

  • classroom-based tools
  • school-based tools
  • district-based tools
  • state-based tools

OSPI began publishing Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) in Spring 2013. How does this information impact the teacher or principal evaluation system and what guidance can you give districts about SGPs?
Please read the information on Student Growth Percentiles and OSPI’s Student Growth Percentiles FAQ.

What are the three components of student growth and how they are different for each criterion?
For teachers, there are five components of student growth embedded across criteria three, six, and eight. They are the same state components for each of the approved instructional frameworks. The components are:

  • SG 3.1 – Establish Student Growth Goals
    Refers to individual or subgroups of students (achievement/opportunity gap)
  • SG 3.2 – Achievement of Student Growth Goals
    Refers to individual or subgroups of students (achievement/opportunity gap)
  • SG 6.1 – Establish Student Growth Goals using Multiple Student Data Elements
    Refers to the whole class based on appropriate standards and aligned to school and district goals
  • SG 6.2 – Achievement of Student Growth Goals
    Refers to the whole class based on appropriate standards and aligned to school and district goals
  • SG 81. – Establish Team Student Growth Goals
    Refers to the teacher as part of a grade-level, content area, or other school or district team

For school leaders, there are three components of student growth embedded in criteria three, five, and eight. They are also identical across both of the approved leadership frameworks. The components are:

  • SG 3 – Provides evidence of student growth that results from the school improvement planning process.
  • SG 5 – Provides evidence of student growth of selected teachers.
  • SG 8 – Provides evidence of growth in student learning.

Why is there 8.1 and not 8.2 for teachers?
SG 8.1 asks a group of teachers to focus together on a set of students for whom they have common responsibility, analyze the learning needs of those students, set a common goal or goals, develop and implement high-quality measures and collectively monitor progress during the year. Teachers can be held individually responsible for active collaboration and for making changes to his/her instruction (SG 8.1) but cannot be held individually responsible for the student growth of others.

How should student growth be evaluated?
The principal and the teacher should sit down to discuss available evidence that demonstrates progress towards goals. The discussion should be based on the goal(s) set by the teacher and approved by the principal as well as on student work and/or performance that demonstrates progress towards that goal. Some districts have defined “growth for most students” and “high evidence of growth” but the context of each classroom is critical to every decision.

Do student growth goals for teachers need to align with principal goals or the school improvement plan?
Most important, goals must be meaningful and relevant to the teacher. The 6.1 student growth rubric for Distinguished in 6.1 states “These whole classroom goals align to school goal(s).” The principal student growth rubric asks principals to “provide evidence of student growth that result from the school improvement planning process (SG3) and provide evidence of growth in student learning.” While it makes perfect sense that all boats are pulling in the same direction, it is not required that the teacher goals match the principal or school goals unless the bargaining agreement specifies that as a local requirement.

When might it make sense to change a student growth goal?
The following scenarios are examples of situations where it makes sense to change a goal:

  • if several EL students move into the class during the identified instructional period;
  • if a large number of families leave the school and affect the size of the identified student group;
  • if the students in question all meet the goal several weeks ahead of schedule.

Any change in goal should occur as the result of a conversation between the teacher and the evaluator.

May teachers include summative student learning data as general trend evidence?
Yes, if they can show direct responsibility for scores.

Is there a form to guide a student growth inquiry?
No, there is no specific form for a student growth inquiry. WAC 392-191A-090 outlines the requirements for the inquiry triggered by a low student growth score on a teacher’s Comprehensive evaluation. WAC 392-191A-180 outlines similar requirements for principals. If there are areas of concern related to the framework, it would make sense for the professional development connected to the student growth inquiry to be tied to C3, C6 and C8 for teachers and C3, C5 and C8 for principals. If the framework evidence reveals no issues, but a low student growth score exists, the professional development plan should be related to one or more topics mentioned in that section of the WAC.

Must a student growth goal include a percentage of students who will reach the learning target? Must the target itself be a percentage?
There is no requirement that student growth goals includes percentages in either area. Percentages may be helpful ways to characterize the growth in achievement sought and attained, or to determine the meaning of “some,” “most,” of “all,” but are not the only ways to capture these.


back to top

 


Consequences or Outcomes of Evaluation

Is probation triggered in a Focused evaluation?
Yes. Teachers who are on a Focused evaluation and receive an unsatisfactory rating must be placed on probation. RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(iii) provides that teachers who receive a Focused evaluation are to be assigned

“a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating for the focused evaluation”.

RCW 28A.405.100(2)(c) defines

“comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating” as “one of the four summative performance ratings for the evaluation as a whole, which shall be the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating.”

Subsection (2)(c) provides that OSPI has the job of prescribing

“a common method for calculating the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating for each of the preferred instructional frameworks, including for a focused evaluation under subsection (12)….”

The comprehensive summative evaluation performance ratings trigger probation under subsection (4)(a). This requires that teachers on Focused evaluations are subject to the statute’s requirements regarding probation.

OSPI advises districts to avoid using the Focused evaluation for teachers who are less than proficient. RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(iii) provides that teachers who have

“received a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 3 or above in the previous school year are required to complete a focused evaluation“

in the years when a Comprehensive is not required. The overall intent of a Focused evaluation is professional growth in an area

“benefiting from additional attention.”

RCW 28A.405.100(4)(a) states that a Level 2 summative rating is not judged satisfactory

“if the classroom teacher is a continuing contract employee under RCW 28A.405.210 with more than five years of teaching experience and if the Level 2 comprehensive evaluation performance rating has been received for two consecutive years or for two years within a consecutive three-year time period.”

An experienced educator who moves to a new district begins a new four year cycle. Districts may ask potential employees to submit past evaluations as part of the hiring process.

Any educator new to a district is provisional for the first year, and so must be evaluated on a Comprehensive evaluation. Following a successful first year as the district’s employee, the evaluator decides whether the educator will be on a Focused or Comprehensive each year.

The TPEP Steering Committee recommends school districts devise a method of tracking Level 1 and Level 2 summative ratings in order to be aware of the consequences of such a rating for any particular educator.


back to top

 


Provisional Status

How long do teachers remain on Provisional Status?
Provisional status for teachers is defined in RCW 28A.405.220, not in the evaluation law.

Teachers new to the profession or new to Washington public school teaching generally remain in provisional status for the first three years of their employment. Teachers new to the profession may be granted continuing status at the end of their second year.

“….the school district superintendent can make a determination to remove an employee from provisional status if the employee has received one of the top two ratings during the second year of employment by the district.”

If a new teacher with less than two years in one district in the Washington public school system moves to another district, the provisional “clock” starts again.

Teachers on continuing status in Washington public schools who move into a new district revert to provisional status for the first year of employment in the new district.


back to top

 


Scoring

What evidence is needed for Criterion 8?
Criterion 8 is about the collaborative work of professionals. Evidence can be found in staff meetings, department meetings, PLCs, and other points of collaboration. The principal can observe any of those events (per the WAC definition of "observation" ), or the teacher could provide evidence from events where the principal is not present.

What happens if there is not sufficient evidence to score a component?
The framework authors’ advice is to score the preponderance of the evidence. If there is evidence, score what is available. To supplement, a short observation to focus on specific elements could be scheduled and/or the teacher could provide evidence from outside the observation.

How do I calculate a summative score?
A Comprehensive evaluation has two scoring steps:

  1. Districts create procedures and practices to establish criterion scores and they are summed equally to create a summative score. Framework rubric scores and student growth rubric scores are included in the calculation. The state’s scoring matrix assigns a corresponding label (Unsatisfactory to Distinguished or 1-4).
  2. Calculate the Student Growth Impact Rating, which is the sum of the five student growth rubrics from criteria 3, 6, and 8 for teachers or criteria 3, 5 and 8 for principals. The Distinguished label would be reduced to Proficient if a low Student Growth Impact Rating exists, and a Student Growth Inquiry would be triggered.

NOTE: eVAL calculates these simultaneously; others will need to do two calculations.

A Focused evaluation has one scoring step. The Focused score is the same as the most recent Comprehensive score. The exception is when the most recent Comprehensive score was a “3” and the evaluator determines that the Focused evaluation evidence indicates a score of “4”. In that case, the score of “4” is awarded for that year. The Focused evaluation does not have a separate student growth impact rating; however, a student growth goal is still determined and growth is measured.

What gets submitted to OSPI after scoring is complete?
Every fall, each district completes the School Employee Evaluation Survey, with total number of teachers in each summative category by school and the total number of principals in each summative category by district. Individual results remain at the district. Each district defines local practices about how and where data should be stored. For districts that use eVAL, all data is retained electronically and can only be accessed by the local district.

What happens if there is not sufficient evidence to score when summative scores are due?
Attention to management and frequent dialogue through the year should help avoid gaps in the evidence. If gaps are discovered in April, there is still time to use strategies described above. It is a state requirement that each criterion be scored for a Comprehensive evaluation. Skipping criterion scoring is not an option. If the principal has conducted several observations and does not see any evidence for a particular observable component, the absence of that evidence might be evidence in itself. But it is incumbent on both the principal and the teacher to assure that plentiful opportunities have existed before drawing any conclusion about a lack of evidence.

If principals have not been scoring observations during the year, is it permissible to holistically rate the evidence at the end of the year?
One critical key to the revised system is holistic scoring – looking at all evidence, over time. It is important to NOT make judgments based on one visit or one conversation or one piece of evidence. There is no state expectation that each observation or artifact be scored. It is the collection of evidence that provides information for scoring, not any one item or event.

In a standards-based system, if a student or a teacher or a principal could not do something in the fall, but demonstrates that skill in winter and spring, the fall “score” is not relevant. Looking at the preponderance of evidence reveals its scope and depth, as well as growth over time.

This is a local decision, however, and some districts have rules about averaging in order to obtain a criterion score. Others have contract language about providing a teacher, or a group of teachers such as those who are new, with a summative score mid-year. This is not a state expectation, for the reasons stated above, but is a local decision.


back to top

 


eVAL

What is the eVAL management system?
eVAL is web-based system developed and designed by the WEA, ESD 113, and OSPI with input and feedback from the TPEP Steering Committee and pilot sites. The system allows teachers, principals, and district administrators to coordinate, review, schedule, view, and upload any and all applicable evaluation materials.

What are the security provisions in place regarding eVAL and personnel files?
eVAL is a voluntary management system for the revised certificated teacher and principal evaluation system. It is developed and funded by WEA, ESD 113, and OSPI. In the state of Washington, teacher evaluations are exempt from public disclosure laws.. RCW 42.56.230.

There is a secure firewall between the three partnering organizations (WEA, OSPI, and ESD 113) and a district’s eVAL management system. The portal for the eVAL system is the state’s EDS system; however, no evaluation information is accessible to OSPI, WEA, or ESD 113. In addition, the summative rating data that is required by state law is collected through a different survey administered through an application titled “School Employee Evaluation Survey” accessible through the Education Data System (EDS) in the fall by OSPI. 


back to top

 


Framework Training

What training is required for evaluators?
RCW 28A.405.130.

“Before school district implementation of the revised evaluation systems required under RCW 28A.405.100, principals and administrators who have evaluation responsibilities must engage in professional development designed to implement the revised systems and maximize rater agreement.”

OSPI created Stage I and Stage II training to meet this requirement. Framework specialists trained by the framework authors or their designees are the only people authorized to conduct Stage I and II framework training on behalf of OSPI. That list is available on the TPEP website at:

The Stage I (12 hour) training must be completed before the evaluator begins the evaluation cycle with employees. Stage II (12-24 hours, depending on the evaluator’s previous experience in WA with another framework) typically is spread over the year so evaluators gain “just in time” training through the cycle and have a place to bring their concerns and challenges during that first year of implementation.

ESDs offer a number of August – September opportunities for Stage I so that principals can meet the initial requirement. Each August, OSPI sends a district Superintendent a list of evaluators trained through the state system. A list of Framework trainings is provided on the TPEP website.

Districts are encouraged to consider “Stage III” trainings in Rater Agreement, Learning-Focused Supervision, and issues of equity to ensure that evaluators continue to grow their evaluation skills.

What gets submitted to OSPI after scoring is complete?
There is no state deadline by which all comprehensive summative evaluations must be completed, but most district collective bargaining agreements do include a date. One should also keep in mind the May 15th deadline for employee notification of discharge.

Each district submits educator evaluation data each fall using the School Employee Evaluation Survey in EDS. Districts submit an aggregated number of teachers in each summative category in each school. As well as aggregated district data for principals and assistant principals in each summative category. Individual results remain at the district. Each district defines local practices about how and where data should be stored. For districts that use eVAL, all data is retained electronically and can only be accessed by the local district.


back to top

 

   Updated 10/23/2017

Old Capitol Building, PO Box 47200, 600 Washington St. S.E., Olympia, WA  98504-7200  360-725-6000  TTY 360-664-3631
Contact Us    |    A-Z Index    |    Site Info    |    Staff Only    |    Education Data System (EDS)