You are on page 1of 4

Comparison of Current Law with Pettigrew/Tom, Lytton, Supt.

Dorn, and Governor Bills Implementing Teacher/Principal Evaluation System
Current Law
 2011-12 Pilots  June 2012 OSPI recommendation  2013-14 SY statewide roll-out

Pettigrew/Tom
  June 2012 OSPI recommendation  2013-14 SY statewide rollout  2014-15 SY new provisions in effect   

Timeline

  Binary rating system of satisfactory / unsatisfactory  Four-tier rating system used beginning 2013-14 SY  Defines eight criteria for evaluation  Require districts to adopt common components of evaluation system (TBD by legislation)  Provide training for principals, administrators and teachers on using four-tier evaluation system (via budget bill)

Common evaluation system for teachers

Principals

 Four-tier rating system used beginning 2013-14 SY  Defines eight criteria for evaluation

  Similar provisions for principals and teachers 

Lytton Sept. 2012 SPI recommendation 2013-14 SY statewide rollout 2013-14 SY new provisions in effect OSPI to submit report on new evaluation system in Dec. 2016 Define four rating levels: Unsatisfactory(1); Basic (2); Proficient (3); and Distinguished (4) Require SPI to identify up to three preferred frameworks by Sept. 2012; districts must adopt one of those frameworks Phase in of teachers under four-tier evaluation system between 2013-14 and 2016-17; beginning in 2013-14 with provisional teachers and teachers on probation Provide training for principals, administrators and teachers on using fourtier evaluation system Similar provisions for principals and teachers Phase in of principals under four-tier evaluation system between 2013-14 and 2016-17; beginning in 2013-14 with principals in

Supt. Dorn

Governor

1

 Same as Pettigrew/Tom except:  2013-14 SY new provisions in effect

 Same as Pettigrew/Tom except:  2013-14 SY new provisions in effect

 Allow OSPI to define uniform rating levels in rule

 Require eight criteria for evaluation  Define four rating levels: Unsatisfactory(1); Basic (2); Proficient (3); and Distinguished (4)  Require common components of evaluation system  Phase in of teachers under four-tier evaluation system  Provide training for principals and administrators on using four-tier evaluation system ($4 million for 2012-14)

 No change proposed

 Similar provisions for principals and teachers

1

Governor’s proposal based on draft language, January 2012. Page 1

January 11, 2012

Comparison of Current Law with Pettigrew/Tom, Lytton, Supt. Dorn, and Governor Bills Implementing Teacher/Principal Evaluation System
Current Law Pettigrew/Tom Lytton first three years of employment and principals (with more than 3 years of experience) in new district
 No change proposed

Supt. Dorn

Governor

1

Use of student growth data in evaluations Use of student input in evaluations

 Student growth data, if available and relevant, can be a factor in evaluations  Law is silent  Long-form evaluation for teachers who have been rated satisfactory for four years, every three years  Short-form (bargained) evaluation in intervening years  Administrator may require a teacher to participate in professional development provided by the district in the area of teaching skills needing improvement, and have a mentor for purposes of improvement  Law is silent on specifics, although there are guidelines around general layoff procedures  In practice, left to

 Require use of student growth data, using multiple measures, as a significant factor in evaluations  Allow use of student input

 No change proposed

 No change proposed

 No change proposed  Comprehensive evaluation for teachers/principals who have been rated 3 or 4 for four consecutive years, every three years  Focused evaluation and professional growth activities on one of eight criteria in intervening years  Requires districts to integrate instructional framework and professional development, relating to each of the four evaluation levels  Requires residency principal preparation programs candidates to demonstrate knowledge of evaluation system

 No change proposed

 No change proposed

Frequency of evaluations

 No change proposed

 No change proposed

 Teachers / principals who are rated 3 or 4 are evaluated with long-form every four years  Required to engage in professional development in intervening years  Requires districts to integrate instructional framework and professional development, relating to each of the four evaluation levels  Requires residency principal preparation programs candidates to demonstrate knowledge of evaluation system  Require districts to adopt staffing policies that consider certification, evaluations, expertise, seniority — could guide assignments

Professional development

 Require all teachers to have individualized, targeted professional growth plans  OSPI, ESDs to serve as clearinghouse for professional development opportunities

 No change proposed

Use of ratings in employment decisions (teachers) January 11, 2012

 Require districts to consider evaluation results (for qualified candidates) before other factors, including seniority

 No change proposed

 No change proposed

Page 2

Comparison of Current Law with Pettigrew/Tom, Lytton, Supt. Dorn, and Governor Bills Implementing Teacher/Principal Evaluation System
Current Law bargaining  Most districts rely on seniority as tie-breaker Mutual consent placements of teachers
 Law is silent

Pettigrew/Tom

Lytton

Supt. Dorn

Governor

1

 Require mutual consent between superintendent, principal and teacher, except in exceptional circumstances

 No change proposed

 No change proposed

 No change proposed

Provisional / nonprovisional contract status

Probationary period

 New educators have provisional status for first three years (in state)  Districts may elect not to renew provisional contracts  Provisional educators have defined rights to appeal non-renewal decision of superintendent up to the school board  New educators achieve non-provisional status automatically after three years of contract renewals  Non-provisional educators have defined rights to appeal nonrenewal decision of superintendent through court system  Educators who are rated lowest rating (U or 1) are placed on probation which includes a mandatory plan of improvement,

 To achieve non-provisional status, educators must be rated 3 or 4 for three years out of five  Educators who are rated 1 for two consecutive years revert to provisional status  Districts may elect not to renew provisional contract  Educators have defined rights to appeal nonrenewal decision of superintendent

 No change proposed

 Educators who are rated Unsatisfactory for two consecutive years revert to provisional status  Districts may elect not to renew provisional contract  Educators have defined rights to appeal nonrenewal decision of superintendent

 No change proposed

 No change proposed

 Teachers /principals who have moved to new evaluation system and are a) rated 1; b) rated 2 for two consecutive years (and, if teacher, have five

 No change proposed

 Teachers /principals who are a) rated 1; b) rated 2 for two consecutive years; or c) rated 2, twice in any three-year period (and have five or more years of

January 11, 2012

Page 3

Comparison of Current Law with Pettigrew/Tom, Lytton, Supt. Dorn, and Governor Bills Implementing Teacher/Principal Evaluation System
Current Law and must show improvements within 60 days (current SY)  Clock starts over for procedural errors  Educators who do not make improvements may be reassigned or placed on paid leave through balance of contract term  Lack of necessary improvement constitutes grounds for a finding of probably cause Pettigrew/Tom Lytton or more years of experience); or c) rated 2, twice in any three-year period (and, if teacher, have five or more years of experience), are placed on probationary status  Days may be added to 60day probationary period if necessary; probationary period must be complete by May 15 of the same school year  Non-material procedural errors do not stop the clock  Teachers may move off probation if they a) earn evaluation of 2 or higher, and are a provisional or continuing contract (with less than five years of experience) employee; or b) earn a 3 or above, and are a continuing contract employee with more than five years of experience Supt. Dorn Governor experience), are placed on probationary status  Probationary period clarified to be minimum of 60 school days and must be completed within school year (in time for notice to be given by May 15 deadline)  Non-material procedural errors do not stop the clock
1

Home assignments during investigation of misconduct (teachers)

 Law does not address educator assignment during investigation

 No change proposed

 No change proposed

 No change proposed

 Limits initial home assignment to 15 days  Require investigation updates to extend home assignment

January 11, 2012

Page 4