Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project.


What is TPEP?

TPEP stands for the Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project. Washington state recently passed legislation requiring school districts to implement a new evaluation system for all teachers and principals beginning in 2013-14. This new system is intended to provide consistent, meaningful feedback to educators that will more effectively promote continuous professional growth.

Where is the Burlington-Edison School District in the process?

Burlington-Edison has formed a committee that will help guide our transition to the new evaluation system. The Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP) Committee consists of teachers, principals and district office administration. The specific purpose of the committee is to learn about and facilitate communication regarding the new state-mandated teacher and principal evaluation system; the committee will also be making recommendations regarding the new evaluation system specific to Burlington-Edison. Burlington-Edison has chosen the Danielson model for their instructional frameworks and the AWSP model for their leadership frameworks. The Burlington-Edison School Board has adopted the TPEP implementation plan at its July 2013 regular meeting.

Please see links to the left for additional information regarding TPEP. We will continue to update this website and documents as information becomes available.

Committee Documents:

TPEP Committe Members


Burlington-Edison – TPEP Committee Members

Name

E-Mail

Position

Work Location

Richard Glick

rglick@be.wednet.edu

7th & 8th Grade Teacher

Allen

K. C. Knudson

kknudson@be.wednet.edu

Executive Director of Teaching & Learning

District Office

Kim Miller

kmiller@be.wednet.edu

2nd Grade Teacher

Bay View

Alisha Ortiz

aortiz@be.wednet.edu

5th Grade Teacher

Lucille Umbarger

Nolan Harron

nharron@be.wednet.edu

7th & 8th Grade Teacher

Allen

Kyle Axelson

kaxelson@be.wednet.edu

Special Education Teacher

High School

Frieda Fuhrmann

ffuhrmann@be.wednet.edu

Science Teacher

High School

Jenna Harris

jharris@be.wednet.edu

Title I Teacher

West View

Rebecca Schmitz

rschmitz@be.wednet.edu

Special Education Teacher

Edison

Todd Setterlund

tsetterlund@be.wednet.edu

Assistant Principal

High School

Jeff Drayer

jdrayer@be.wednet.edu

Assistant Superintendent

District Office

eVal Login & Help

Having Problems with eVal?
Contact eVAL Customer Support at 360-464-6708, or email eval@esd113.org.

Request Access for eVAL

You have been given (or you already have ) a login to EDS (https://eds.ospi.k12.wa.us/ ). This is the system you will use to access the eVal program.

Your login is your full email address (i.e. jdoe@be.wednet.edu). If you can’t remember or do not know your password then do the following:

Enter your username and click "Forgot your password?" below the login button. Follow the instructions to receive an automatically generated temporary password.
Figure 1


1.Once you get logged in click on the Profile Tab

Figure 2

2.Click on Request Access
Figure 3

3.On the Dropdown find the eValSchoolTeacher option and select it.

Figure 4

4.On the next screen find your school (TIP: If you start typing the name it will go down to the school)

Figure 5

5.Then Click Save

6.Finally - The EDS Security Manager will approve your request, these approvals will be done on a regular basis throughout the year - however - you can email to let them know you have requested and they will approve your request right away.

Burlington-Edison FAQ

Burlington-Edison School District

Teacher / Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP)

Q & A

Updated - November 29, 2012

Number

Question

Answer

1

What is TPEP?

The Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project is a component of E2SSB 6696, a broad education reform bill passed by the Washington State Legislature in the 2010 session. The bill calls for significant changes in principal and teacher evaluation systems, including the introduction of a four-level evaluation ranking (most school districts have only two: satisfactory and unsatisfactory).

The new teacher evaluation is a four level evaluation system based on eight criteria. The eight criteria are:

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 and collaborating with parents and the school community

8.Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning

2

What is the TPEP Committee?

The TPEP Committee is charged with developing the implementation plan of the new evaluation system; the committee is made up of B-EEA representation and B-ESD administration.

TPEP Committee Essential Question:

How do we implement an evaluation system that meets the requirements of the new legislation and that genuinely helps and supports staff members to grow professionally so that students become career and college ready?

3

Who is on the TPEP Committee?

1.Richard Glick, Allen (Co-Facilitator)

2.K. C. Knudson, Executive Director of T & L (Co-Facilitator)

3.Kim Miller, Bay View (K-2 Representation)

4.Alisha Ortiz, Lucille Umbarger (4-6 Representation)

5.Nolan Harron, Allen (7-8 Representation)

6.Kyle Axelson, High School (HS Representation)

7.Frieda Fuhrmann, High School (HS Representation)

8.Jenna Harris, West View (Specialist Representation)

9.Rebecca Schmitz, Edison (Specialist Representation)

10.Aaron Darragh, Bay View (K-8 Administration)

11.Todd Setterlund, High School (HS Administration)

12.Jeff Drayer, Assistant Superintendent (Human Resources)

4

Does the TPEP Committee have outside support for their work?

Yes – the District has applied for a Regional Implementation Grant (RIG) that will provide guided support through the ESD.

5

Which framework is B-ESD using?

Danielson Framework; the Danielson framework will guide scoring within the eight TPEP criteria.

6

Why did we choose the Danielson Model?

The state requires school districts to implement one of three frameworks (Danielson, Marzano or 5-D’s). B-ESD chose the Danielson Model as it aligns with our past practice. A majority of staff members are familiar with the Danielson Framework. B-ESD has been using Charlotte Danielson’s work over the past ten years.

7

Are we still using Pathwise?

No – starting in 2013-2014 the TPEP Committee is recommending that all certificated staff members who provide academically focused instruction be evaluated using the updated Danielson Framework; we will no longer use the current version (referred to as Pathwise).

8

What certificated staff members are not included in the new evaluation system?

SLPs, OTs, PTs, Nurse, Counselors, and Dean of Students.

These certificated staff members will continue to be evaluated using their current respective four-tiered rubrics.

9

What is the implementation plan?

All certificated staff members must be evaluated using a comprehensive evaluation once within the next three years (prior to 2015-2016).

·Co-Hort I (2013-2014) – 33% of staff members on comprehensive evaluation; 66% on focused evaluation

·Co-Hort II (2014-2015) – 33% of staff members on comprehensive evaluation; 66% on focused evaluation

·Co-Hort III (2015-2016) – 33% of staff members on comprehensive evaluation; 66% on focused evaluation

10

Where do I “fall” in the implementation phase?

All provisional employees must be evaluated using the comprehensive evaluation. Employees who are on provisional status in 2013-2014 will be part of co-hort I. Certificated staff members on the TPEP Committee will also be part of co-hort I.

The remaining staff members who will make up the 33% in co-hort I (2013-2014) will be volunteers.

11

Who is a provisional employee?

Certificated employees are considered to have provisional status the first three years in a district.

An employee who has previously completed at least two years of certificated employment in another district in Washington state (two consecutive years in same district) is provisional for one year (first year in our district).

12

What is meant by a comprehensive evaluation?

·Assesses all eight evaluation criteria

·All criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation rating

·Student Growth Rubrics embedded in Criterion (3, 6, & 8)

·All provisional classroom teachers and any classroom teacher not on level 3 or level 4 receive Comprehensive evaluation

·All classroom teacher shall receive a comprehensive summative evaluation at least once every four years

13

What is meant by a focused evaluation?

·Includes an assessment of one of the eight criterion

·Student Growth Rubrics from one of the three criterion

oIf a teacher chooses criterion 3, 6 or 8; their accompanying student growth rubrics will be used

oIf a teacher chooses Criterion 1, 2, 4, 5 or 7, the accompanying student growth rubrics from Criterion 6 will be used

·Approved by the teacher’s evaluator

·A focused evaluation must be performed in any year that a comprehensive evaluation is not scheduled

14

What is meant by evaluated on student assessment results?

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.

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.

15

Who determines the assessment(s) used for the evaluation?

The joint TPEP Committee of teachers and administrators will determine what assessments will be used. We will work with outside support provided by OSPI and the ESD (through grant dollars to support this work – see question #4)

16

What is meant by a four-tiered summative (overall) rating?

Each certificated staff member and principal will receive an overall rating of 1, 2, 3 or 4. This rating will be an “average” of the ratings from each criterion.

The overall rating is a formula set by OSPI; the individual rating of each criterion is determined by the TPEP Committee.

17

What Human Resource implications of the new evaluation system are outlined in the legislation?

By 2015-2016, evaluation results must be used as one of multiple factors in Making HR and personnel decisions. HR decisions include, but are not limited to, staff assignment and RIF.

ESSB 5895 – Section 8(a)

“…Nothing in this section [of the legislation] limits the ability to collectively bargain how the multiple factors shall be used in making human resources or personnel decisions, with the exception that evaluation results must be a factor.”

18

How does the new evaluation system affect our work with STAR?

The STAR Protocol and the associated processes will continue to be supported as a professional learning option for all teachers. The STAR indicators, as well as the collaborative and reflective process, have clearly been shown to support teachers in refining their craft in order to move toward and beyond proficiency.

19

Are principals also evaluated on a new system?

Yes – principals are evaluated on the following eight criteria. Principals are using the AWSP framework.

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 the 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

20

Is student achievement part of the principal evaluation?

Yes – student achievement data is tied to criterion 3, 5 and 8 for principals

21

Where can I get more information?

http://tpep-wa.org/ or go to OSPI website and search TPEP

Other Resources

  • OSPI – TPEP WEBSITE

    The Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot was born out of Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6696 during the 2010 legislative session. The evaluation provisions in the bill were part of a larger reform effort made during Washington’s Race to the Top application. The bill created our pilot projection and moved the state from a two-tiered system of unsatisfactory to a four-tiered evaluation system. In addition to moving to a four-tiered system, the legislation created eight new criteria for teachers and principals to be evaluated upon, with common themes tying the criteria for teachers and principals together. E2SSB 6696 also created a TPEP Steering Committee made up of representatives from the following organizations:
    • OSPI
    • Governor’s office
    • Washington Education Association
    • Association of Washington School Principals
    • Washington Association of School Administrators
    • Washington State Parent Teacher Association
    • Washington State School Directors’ Association (added in May 2011, added later through ESSB 5895)
    Click Link below to access site:
  • CHARLOTTE DANIELSON’S FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING

    The Framework for Teaching, created by Charlotte Danielson, is a comprehensive and coherent framework that identifies those aspects of a teacher’s responsibilities that have been documented through empirical studies and theoretical research as promoting improved student learning. The Framework for Teaching is a validated” instrument; that is, studies have shown that teachers who receive higher ratings on their evaluation produce greater gains in student test scores.
    Click Link below to access site:
  • EVAL VIDEO

    eVAL is a web-based tool designed to manage the evaluation process and documentation. Developed in partnership with the Washington Education Association, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Educational Service District 113
    Click Link below to access site:
  • EVAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTS

    Click the link below to access these documents:
  • TEACHER & PRINCIPAL CRITERIA

    Click Link below to access site:
  • SENATE BILL 6696

    Summary of Senate Bill 6696
    Click Link below to access site:

TPEP Glossary

Glossary (From TPEP Website)


TPEP Terms



Revised Teacher Evaluation Criteria — Sometimes informally called the “state 8″, the new criteria in RCW 28A.405.100 were signed into law on March 29, 2010. The criteria form the backbone of the new evaluation system. According to the RCW, “the four-level rating system used to evaluate the certificated classroom teacher must describe performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.”

Criteria Definitions — Based on feedback from experts and our TPEP districts, we have created definitions for each of the new teacher criterion. The definitions are intended to delineate the criteria and minimize the overlap between the criterion, creating more consistency across the state in setting clear evaluation targets for teachers and principals. These will be defined in WAC.

Instructional Framework — The instructional framework provides a common language/model of instruction and sets a shared vision of good teaching within the district. Marzano states that teachers and principals use the instructional framework “to converse about effective teaching, give and receive feedback, collect and act upon data to monitor growth regarding the reasoned use of the strategies, and align professional development needs against the framework.”

Rubrics — Each instructional or leadership framework provides rubrics clearly defining the continuum of teaching performance, from unsatisfactory through distinguished teaching, based on the eight teacher evaluation criteria. The rubrics should be used to train principals to identify strengths and weaknesses in practice based on clearly defined evidence and measures. They also take into account the variations of novice to expert teachers.

Measures and Evidence — (Defined in draft by TPEP Pilots) The measures and evidence are used to determine the “teacher’s performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded.” The measures used in the evaluation system should have strong correlation to the criteria being evaluated. There are four areas under the “measures and evidence” section: classroom observation, teacher self-assessment, student growth data, other measures/evidence. This section should represent the district’s system for determining final summative evaluation score.

Final Summative Evaluation — (Defined in WAC and not determined until the conclusion of TPEP Pilot) The final summative evaluation is a critical definition in order to ensure consistency across the state as teachers are evaluated and data is submitted in aggregate. In the late fall 8 of the 9 TPEP sites and WASA submitted a summative evaluation statement for each of the 4 tiers. Similar to the standards-based system for students, clear targets for both the distinct criteria and the final summative evaluation will drive principals and teachers to a evaluation system that promotes growth and prevents stagnation.

Regional Implementation Grants (RIG) — A TPEP ESD regional implementation
consortium will involve 5–10 districts, which will collaborate around the evaluation
implementation activities by agreeing to the identified assurances as a group. Each
ESD will coordinate the work of the districts within the regional consortium. OSPI along
with the rest of the TPEP steering committee determined a list of assurances each
district must agree to in applying.

eVal (Evaluation Management Tool) — A web-based system developed and designed
by the WEA, ESD 113, and OSPI with input and feedback from our TPEP Steering
Committee and pilot sites. The system will allow teachers, principals, and district
administrators to coordinate, review, schedule, view, and upload any and all applicable
evaluation materials. eVal is currently being tested and by our pilot sites before
expanding to state-wide availability.

TPEP Task Force Terms: Student Assessment



Assessment — the process of gathering information, both formally and informally, about students’ understandings and skills.

Authentic Assessment — demonstration or application of a skill or ability within a real-life context.

Criterion referenced — criterion-referenced tests measure student performance against a set of standards with determined levels (advanced, proficient, basic).

Diagnostic assessment — information collected before learning that is used to assess prior knowledge and identify misconceptions.

Evaluation — the process of making judgments about the level of students’ achievement for accountability, promotion, and certification.

Fairness — addresses the issue of possible bias or discrimination of an assessment toward any individual or group (race, gender, ethnicity).

Formative assessment — information collected during learning that is used to make instructional decisions.

Grade equivalent — uses a scale based on grade levels and months to establish students’ level of performance.

Norm referenced — norm-referenced tests compare student performance to a national population of students who served as the ‘norming’ group.

Performance assessment — students demonstrate that they can perform or demonstrate specific behaviors and abilities.

Percentile — a statistical device that shows how a student compares with students in the ‘norming’ group who had the same or lower score.

Portfolio — a collection of student work with reflections.

Reliability — the degree to which an assessment will produce dependable results consistently and over time.

Rubrics — a scoring strategy that defines criteria and describes levels of quality (Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, Distinguished).

Standardized test — standardized, summative assessments designed to provide information on the performance of schools and districts.

Summative assessment — information collected after instruction that is used to summarize student performance and determine grades.

Validity — the degree to which an assessment measures what it claims to measure.

TPEP Task Force Terms: Student Growth



Expected Growth — a student’s expected/predicted performance on a current year test given his or her previous year’s test score. This is obtained by regressing the current year test score on the prior year test score. In other words, estimating expected growth addresses the question, “Compared to students with the same prior test score, is the current year test score higher or lower than would be expected?”

Growth Models — measure student achievement growth from one year to the next by tracking the same students. This type of model addresses the question “How much, on average, did students’ performance change from one grade to the next?” To permit meaningful interpretation of student growth, the model implicitly assumes the measurement scales across grades are vertically linked (i.e., that student scores on different tests across grades are directly comparable and represent a developmental continuum of knowledge and skill).

Residualized Growth — the difference between any student’s observed current year test score, and that which would be the expected score given his or her prior year test scores (i.e., expected growth) represents residual. This residual is referred to as “residualized growth,” which quantifies the extent to which students’ performance changes between the prior year and the current year is higher or lower compared to those with similar performance in prior years.

Teacher Effect — a teacher’s contribution to student performance growth compared with that of the average (or median, or otherwise defined) teacher in the district or the state. In essence, teacher effect is the difference between the observed student achievement growth and the expected student achievement growth (controlling for confounding factors, such as prior student achievement and sometimes student background factors), which are interpreted as representing differences in student achievement growth due to differences in teacher effectiveness. Note that the description of “school effect” or “principal effect” is less straightforward because it will depend on decisions about how to aggregate grade- or subject-level estimates based on the specific model employed to determine teacher effects.

Value-Added Estimate — to determine the value-added estimate, teacher effects are compared with the counterfactual (sometimes referred to as a “typical” teacher). If the teacher effect is higher than the counterfactual, then we may claim the teacher is effective (i.e., positive value-added). Conversely, if the teacher effect is lower than the counterfactual, then we may claim that the teacher is not effective (i.e., negative value-added). The number or rating produced in the comparison is the value-added estimate.

Value-Added Models (VAMs) — complex statistical models that attempt to determine how specific teachers and schools affect student achievement growth over time. This model generally uses at least two years of students’ test scores and may take into account other student- and school-level variables, such as family background, poverty, and other contextual factors. VAMs address the question, “To what extent can changes in student performance be attributed to a specific school and/or teacher compared with that of the average school or teacher?”

Cohort I