Teacher Evaluation Training

September 2015 Teacher Evaluation Training

1. Purpose: Opportunity for teachers to gain an in depth understanding of the revised teacher evaluation system and the instructional framework that will be used to judge teacher performance.

2. Description of services provided: School districts used these funds to provide training for teachers to learn the processes and procedures of the revised educator evaluation system as well as the specififcs of their district’s selected instructional framework, the application of student growth and the appropriate use of artifacts and evidence. ESDs offered learning opportunities for district teams to understand the ways student growth goals and measures are incorporated into the scoring. Those district teams then used the materials created by ESDs to replicate workshops for educators back in their home districts. Districts and ESDs also hired OSPI-approved instructional framework specialists to lead teacher workshops on the use of the frameworks. When teachers were released from their duties, substitute pay was funded from this grant. Many districts used this funding to pay teachers to attend workshops held outside their contract schedule or calendar. Districts also used funding to pay teachers to work together in teams to develop student growth goals and measures.

3. Criteria for receiving services and/or grants: All school districts and Educational Services Districts were eligible to apply. Based on the number of teachers employed statewide for 2013–14, the allocation was $85 per teacher. Districts submitted plans via igrants and they were approved by the OSPI TPEP project lead. Districts were required to use OSPI-approved instructional framework specialists to teach the framework, and used either ESD or local district staff to train teachers on the evaluation process and the use of student growth.

4. Beneficiaries, 2014-15 School Year: Teachers in 211 school districts.

5. FY15 Funding - State Appropriation: $5,000,000 Number of staff associated with this program/service (indicate where applicable): Fiscal Year 2015

# of OSPI staff associated with this funding (FTEs): 0 # of contractors/other staff associated with this funding: 0

Fiscal Year Amount FY15 $5,000,000 FY14 $10,000,000

6. Are federal or other funds contingent on state funding? no

7. First year funded: 2014

8. Grant beneficiaries, student impacted Teachers in 211 school districts.

9. Programmatic changes since inception: n/a

10. Evaluations of program/major findings:

1 Most districts utilized the Teacher Training Fund in 2014-15. Those districts that did not use the funds were very small and very remote. Statewide, the dollars were allocated to the following expense categories: Salaries/benefits (including subs) $4,232,319 Materials $282,191 Purchased Services $342,762 Mileage $24,202 Indirects $282,690

The University of Washington completed a study of the implementation of the program in six “early implementer” districts across the state in January, 2015. These districts were selected to “provide a window into the issues and challenges faced by districts that have expended tremendous effort, thought, and care into doing this work.” Several policy recommendations surfaced from the study:  Allow time for implementation of complex policy  Stay the course – no more policy changes for now  Invest in capacity-building and coherence  Provide for continued support for integrated professional development  Engage the support of teacher preparation institutions The report may be found in its entirety at: http://tpep-wa.org/wp-content/uploads/UW_TPEP %20Report_FINAL.pdf

In July, 2015, the University of Washington submitted another report, this one on the efforts to support professional development. Key recommendations from this study include:  Allow greater flexibility in the use of state-funded professional development  Provide continued support for ongoing and integrated professional development  Promote greater communication and collaboration among districts  Invest in capacity-building for long-term sustainability  Provide additional training and supports for principals  Keep the policy but streamline the process The report may be found in its entirety at: http://tpep-wa.org/wp- content/uploads/UW_TPEP_FinalReport2015.pdf

11. Major challenges faced by the program: For the 2014-15 school year, districts knew prior to the end of school what their allocation for the year would be and planned accordingly.

When asked what supports they needed, many districts expressed interest in learning about what is working in other districts. To this end, OSPI contracted with the ESDs to create administrator networks, online tools and a resource bank for sharing successful tools and strategies developed locally. OSPI also contracted with the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession to hold two TPEP Colloquia, one in Spokane and one at SeaTac, in which districts brought tools and strategies to share with other districts. Both were well-attended and will be repeated again this year.

“Competing initiatives” are often cited by districts when asked about the challenges of TPEP implementation. Districts are beginning, however, to see that most district initiatives fit under the TPEP umbrella, and to make the connections explicit.

2 12. Statutory and/or Budget language: Budget Proviso: ESSB 6052 – Sec. 1510 (16) - $10,000,000 of the general fund-state appropriation for fiscal year 2014 and $5,000,000 of the general fund-state appropriation for fiscal year 2015 are provided solely for the provision of training for teachers in the performance- based teacher principal evaluation program. Of the amounts appropriated in this subsection, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 is a one-time appropriation.