ESSB 5895

ESSB 5895: Regarding certificated employee evaluations.

E2SSB 6696: Part 2 — Evaluations

RCWs: Certificated employees; Criteria for Evaluation and Model Programs

WACs: School personnel — evaluation of the professional performance capabilities

Watch TVW’s coverage of E2SSB 6696 all the way from committee to bill signing

Watch any of the committee hearings, floor debates, or the bill signing at TVW or view the history of the bill at the bill’s legislative summary page.

Sec. 1 RCW 28A.405.100 and 2010 c 235 s 202 are each amended to read as follows:

(1)(a) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the superintendent of public instruction shall establish and may amend from time to time minimum criteria for the evaluation of the professional performance capabilities and development of certificated classroom teachers and certificated support personnel. For classroom teachers the criteria shall be developed in the following categories: Instructional skill; classroom management, professional preparation and scholarship; effort toward improvement when needed; the handling of student discipline and attendant problems; and interest in teaching pupils and knowledge of subject matter.

(b) Every board of directors shall, in accordance with procedure provided in RCW 41.59.010 through 41.59.170, 41.59.910, and 41.59.920, establish evaluative criteria and procedures for all certificated classroom teachers and certificated support personnel. The evaluative criteria must contain as a minimum the criteria established by the superintendent of public instruction pursuant to this section and must be prepared within six months following adoption of the superintendent of public instruction’s minimum criteria. The district must certify to the superintendent of public instruction that evaluative criteria have been so prepared by the district.

(2)(a) Pursuant to the implementation schedule established in subsection (7)(((b)))

(c) of this section, every board of directors shall, in accordance with procedures provided in RCW 41.59.010 through 41.59.170, 41.59.910, and 41.59.920, establish revised evaluative criteria and a four-level rating system for all certificated classroom teachers.

(b) The minimum criteria shall include: (i) Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement; (ii) demonstrating effective teaching practices; (iii) recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs; (iv) providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum; (v) fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment; (vi) using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning; (vii) communicating and collaborating with parents and (([the])) the school community; and (viii) 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 of certificated classroom teachers for at least three of the evaluation criteria listed in this subsection.

(c) 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. ((When)) The summative performance ratings shall be as follows: Level 1 – unsatisfactory; level 2 – basic; level 3 – proficient; and level 4 – distinguished. A classroom teacher shall receive one of the four summative performance ratings for each of the minimum criteria in (b) of this subsection and one of the four summative performance ratings for the evaluation as a whole, which shall be the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. By December 1, 2012, the superintendent of public instruction must adopt rules 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) of this section, giving appropriate weight to the indicators evaluated under each criteria and maximizing rater agreement among the frameworks.

(d) By December 1, 2012, the superintendent of public instruction shall adopt rules that provide descriptors for each of the summative performance ratings, based on the development work of pilot school districts under subsection (7) of this section. Any subsequent changes to the descriptors by the superintendent may only be made following consultation with a group broadly reflective of the parties represented in subsection (7)(a) of this section.

(e) By September 1, 2012, the superintendent of public instruction shall identify up to three preferred instructional frameworks that support the revised evaluation system. The instructional frameworks shall be research-based and establish definitions or rubrics for each of the four summative performance ratings for each evaluation criteria. Each school district must adopt one of the preferred instructional frameworks and post the selection on the district’s web site. The superintendent of public instruction shall establish a process for approving minor modifications or adaptations to a preferred instructional framework that may be proposed by a school district.

(f) Student growth data((, if available and)) that is relevant to the teacher and subject matter((, is referenced)) must be a factor in the evaluation process ((it)) and must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools. 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. Student growth data elements may also include the teacher’s performance as a member of the overall instructional team of a school when use of this data is relevant and appropriate. As used in this subsection, “student growth” means the change in student achievement between two points in time.

(g) Student input may also be included in the evaluation process.

(3)(a) Except as provided in subsection (((10))) (11) of this section, it shall be the responsibility of a principal or his or her designee to evaluate all certificated personnel in his or her school. During each school year all classroom teachers and certificated support personnel shall be observed for the purposes of evaluation at least twice in the performance of their assigned duties. Total observation time for each employee for each school year shall be not less than sixty minutes. An employee in the third year of provisional status as defined in RCW 28A.405.220 shall be observed at least three times in the performance of his or her duties and the total observation time for the school year shall not be less than ninety minutes. Following each observation, or series of observations, the principal or other evaluator shall promptly document the results of the observation in writing, and shall provide the employee with a copy thereof within three days after such report is prepared. 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.

(b) As used in this subsection and subsection (4) of this section, “employees” means classroom teachers and certificated support personnel except where otherwise specified.

(4)(a) At any time after October 15th, an employee whose work is not judged satisfactory based on district evaluation criteria shall be notified in writing of the specific areas of deficiencies along with a reasonable program for improvement. For classroom teachers who have been transitioned to the revised evaluation system pursuant to the district implementation schedule adopted under subsection (7)(c) of this section, the following comprehensive summative evaluation performance ratings based on the evaluation criteria in subsection (2)(b) of this section mean a classroom teacher’s work is not judged satisfactory:

(i) Level 1; or

(ii) Level 2 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 summative evaluation performance rating has been received for two consecutive years or for two years within a consecutive three-year time period.

(b)During the period of probation, the employee may not be transferred from the supervision of the original evaluator. Improvement of performance or probable cause for nonrenewal must occur and be documented by the original evaluator before any consideration of a request for transfer or reassignment as contemplated by either the individual or the school district. A probationary period of sixty school days shall be established. Days may be added if deemed necessary to complete a program for improvement and evaluate the probationer’s performance, as long as the probationary period is concluded before May 15th of the same school year. The probationary period may be extended into the following school year if the probationer has five or more years of teaching experience and has a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating as of May 15th of less than level 2. The establishment of a probationary period does not adversely affect the contract status of an employee within the meaning of RCW 28A.405.300. The purpose of the probationary period is to give the employee opportunity to demonstrate improvements in his or her areas of deficiency. The establishment of the probationary period and the giving of the notice to the employee of deficiency shall be by the school district superintendent and need not be submitted to the board of directors for approval. During the probationary period the evaluator shall meet with the employee at least twice monthly to supervise and make a written evaluation of the progress, if any, made by the employee. The evaluator may authorize one additional certificated employee to evaluate the probationer and to aid the employee in improving his or her areas of deficiency((;)). Should the evaluator not authorize such additional evaluator, the probationer may request that an additional certificated employee evaluator become part of the probationary process and this request must be implemented by including an additional experienced evaluator assigned by the educational service district in which the school district is located and selected from a list of evaluation specialists compiled by the educational service district. Such additional certificated employee shall be immune from any civil liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed with regard to the good faith performance of such evaluation. If a procedural error occurs in the implementation of a program for improvement, the error does not invalidate the probationer’s plan for improvement or evaluation activities unless the error materially affects the effectiveness of the plan or the ability to evaluate the probationer’s performance. The probationer ((may)) must be removed from probation if he or she has demonstrated improvement to the satisfaction of the ((principal)) evaluator in those areas specifically detailed in his or her initial notice of deficiency and subsequently detailed in his or her ((improvement)) program for improvement. A classroom teacher who has been transitioned to the revised evaluation system pursuant to the district implementation schedule adopted under subsection (7)(c) of this section must be removed from probation if he or she has demonstrated improvement that results in a new comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating of level 2 or above for a provisional employee or a continuing contract employee with five or fewer years of experience, or of level 3 or above for a continuing contract employee with more than five years of experience. Lack of necessary improvement during the established probationary period, as specifically documented in writing with notification to the probationer ((and shall)) constitutes grounds for a finding of probable cause under RCW 28A.405.300 or 28A.405.210.
(((b)))

(c) When a continuing contract employee with five or more years of experience receives a comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating below level 2 for two consecutive years, the school district shall, within ten days of the completion of the second summative comprehensive evaluation or May 15th, whichever occurs first, implement the employee notification of discharge as provided in RCW 28A.405.300.
(d) Immediately following the completion of a probationary period that does not produce performance changes detailed in the initial notice of deficiencies and ((improvement)) program for improvement, the employee may be removed from his or her assignment and placed into an alternative assignment for the remainder of the school year. In the case of a classroom teacher who has been transitioned to the revised evaluation system pursuant to the district implementation schedule adopted under subsection (7)(c) of this section, the teacher may be removed from his or her assignment and placed into an alternative assignment for the remainder of the school year immediately following the completion of a probationary period that does not result in the required comprehensive summative evaluation performance ratings specified in (b) of this subsection. This reassignment may not displace another employee nor may it adversely affect the probationary employee’s compensation or benefits for the remainder of the employee’s contract year. If such reassignment is not possible, the district may, at its option, place the employee on paid leave for the balance of the contract term.

(5) Every board of directors shall establish evaluative criteria and procedures for all superintendents, principals, and other administrators. It shall be the responsibility of the district superintendent or his or her designee to evaluate all administrators. Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, such evaluation shall be based on the administrative position job description. Such criteria, when applicable, shall include at least the following categories: Knowledge of, experience in, and training in recognizing good professional performance, capabilities and development; school administration and management; school finance; professional preparation and scholarship; effort toward improvement when needed; interest in pupils, employees, patrons and subjects taught in school; leadership; and ability and performance of evaluation of school personnel.

(6)(a) Pursuant to the implementation schedule established by subsection (7)(b) of this section, every board of directors shall establish revised evaluative criteria and a four-level rating system for principals.

(b) The minimum criteria shall include: (i) Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and teaching for students and staff; (ii) demonstrating commitment to closing the achievement gap; (iii) providing for school safety; (iv) leading the development, implementation, and evaluation of a data-driven plan for increasing student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements; (v) assisting instructional staff with alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment with state and local district learning goals; (vi) monitoring, assisting, and evaluating effective instruction and assessment practices; (vii) managing both staff and fiscal resources to support student achievement and legal responsibilities; and (viii) partnering with the school community to promote student learning. Student growth data must be a substantial factor in evaluating the summative performance of the principal for at least three of the evaluation criteria listed in this subsection.

(c) The four-level rating system used to evaluate the principal must describe performance along a continuum that indicates the extent to which the criteria have been met or exceeded. ((When available,)) The summative performance ratings shall be as follows: Level 1 – unsatisfactory; level 2 – basic; level 3 – proficient; and level 4 -distinguished. A principal shall receive one of the four summative performance ratings for each of the minimum criteria in (b) of this subsection and one of the four summative performance ratings for the evaluation as a whole, which shall be the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating.

(e) By September 1, 2012, the superintendent of public instruction shall identify up to three preferred leadership frameworks that support the revised evaluation system. The leadership frameworks shall be research-based and establish definitions or rubrics for each of the four performance ratings for each evaluation criteria. Each school district shall adopt one of the preferred leadership frameworks and post the selection on the district’s web site. The superintendent of public instruction shall establish a process for approving minor modifications or adaptations to a preferred leadership framework that may be proposed by a school district.

(f) Student growth data that is ((referenced)) relevant to the principal 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. As used in this subsection, “student growth” means the change in student achievement between two points in time.
(g) Input from building staff may also be included in the evaluation process.

(h) For principals who have been transitioned to the revised evaluation system pursuant to the district implementation schedule adopted under subsection (7)(c) of this section, the following comprehensive summative evaluation performance ratings mean a principal’s work is not judged satisfactory:

(i) Level 1; or

(ii) Level 2 if the principal has more than five years of experience in the principal role and if the level 2 comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating has been received for two consecutive years or for two years within a consecutive three-year time period.

(7)(a) The superintendent of public instruction, in collaboration with state associations representing teachers, principals, administrators, school board members, and parents, to be known as the steering committee, shall create models for implementing the evaluation system criteria, student