Evaluation of Effectiveness: Washington

Analysis of Washington's policies

Washington does not require that objective evidence of student learning be the preponderant criterion of its teacher evaluations. Districts must choose one of three instructional frameworks: CEL, Danielson or Marzano. The state's approved student growth rubrics must also be utilized by the districts. The revised system is required for all provisional teachers in 2013-2014, with experienced teachers being phased in over the next three years. 
Washington requires teacher evaluations to include a minimum of eight criteria: 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; and 8) exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning. 
Student growth data must be a "substantial factor" in evaluating the summative performance for at least three of the above-listed criteria. Student growth data must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based and state-based tools and can include measures of performance across an instructional team or school. 
The following four rating levels must be used: unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, distinguished.
Teachers with a preliminary rating of distinguished with a low student-growth rating will receive an overall proficient rating. 
Classroom observations are required. 

Citation

SB 5895 (2012) WAC 393-191-090 RCW 28A.405.100

Recommendations for Washington

Require instructional effectiveness to be the preponderant criterion of any teacher evaluation. 
Washington's policy falls short by failing to require that evidence of student learning be the most significant criterion. In fact, the state's policy requiring student learning to be a substantial factor in just three of the eight criteria results in an insignificant overall impact of instructional effectiveness on the evaluation score. The state should either require a common evaluation instrument in which evidence of student learning is the most significant criterion, or it should specifically require that student learning be the preponderant criterion in local evaluation processes. This can be accomplished by requiring objective evidence to count for at least half of the evaluation score or through other scoring mechanisms, such as a matrix, that ensure that nothing affects the overall score more. Whether state or locally developed, a teacher should not be able to receive a satisfactory rating if found ineffective in the classroom. 

Ensure that evaluations also include classroom observations that specifically focus on and document the effectiveness of instruction.
Although Washington requires classroom observations as part of teacher evaluations, the state should articulate guidelines that focus classroom observations on the quality of instruction, as measured by student time on task, student grasp or mastery of the lesson objective and efficient use of class time.

State response to our analysis

Washington was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that enhanced this analysis. The state also asserted that student growth is defined as the change in student achievement between two points in time, and that multiple measures of student growth are required for every classroom teacher, regardless of content or grade level.  Performance measures that assess progress toward student growth goals are objective measures that may be classroom- or school-based formative assessments as well as summative assessments that are district or state based. 

Washington also noted that a classroom teacher with more than five years of teacher experience who receives a basic rating for two consecutive years or for two years within a consecutive three-year time period is judged to be unsatisfactory and subject to discharge.

Further, for any teacher on a comprehensive evaluation, unsatisfactory student growth in any of the rubric rows will result in a low student growth-impact rating.  A classroom teacher with a low growth-impact rating will undergo a student growth inquiry with his or her evaluator that includes examining the evidence, exploring possible extenuating circumstances and scheduling monthly conferences, as well as creating a professional development plan focused on improving student growth. 

Finally, Washington pointed out that all three instructional frameworks provide detailed rubrics for classroom observation and nonclassroom interactions. Regardless of framework, observations are focused on gathering evidence of instruction that is based on current research regarding best practice, including the elements suggested by NCTQ.