HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1562

This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent.

Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 21 members: Representatives Santos, Chair; Stonier, Vice Chair; Dahlquist, Ranking Minority Member; Magendanz, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Bergquist, Fagan, Haigh, Hargrove, Hawkins, Hayes, Hunt, Klippert, Lytton, Maxwell, McCoy, Orwall, Parker, Pike, Pollet, Seaquist and Warnick.

Background:

Legislation enacted in 2010 and 2012 requires development of revised evaluation systems for teachers and principals, including eight new evaluation criteria for teachers, eight criteria for principals, and a four-level rating system using a continuum of performance based on the extent to which the criteria have been met. School districts must adopt one of three preferred instructional and leadership frameworks to support the evaluation systems, and student growth data using multiple measures must be a substantial factor in evaluating a teacher or principal's performance on at least three of the evaluation criteria.

As of January 2013 at least 226 school districts have been actively involved in implementing the revised evaluation systems, either as a pilot district, through a regional implementation grant, or as a recipient of a federal school improvement grant. School districts must begin implementation of the revised systems in the 2013-14 school year, and by 2015-16 must have transitioned all staff to the new evaluations.

If funds are appropriated, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is required to make a professional development program available to support implementation, with components for principals, administrators, and teachers. Training opportunities thus far have focused primarily on principals and administrators who must conduct the evaluations.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Summary of Substitute Bill:

Funds must be provided for a minimum of two professional development days for K-12 teachers in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years for the purpose of training and understanding the new evaluation systems. Training should include:

examination of the instructional framework;
the relationship of the state criteria and rubrics to the instructional framework;
the use of multiple measures;
the relationship between the teacher and principal evaluation systems; and
other evaluation topics.

Staff Summary of Public Testimony:

(In support) The state now provides no learning improvement days (LIDs) for teachers while simultaneously implementing two huge education reforms: teacher-principal evaluation and implementation of Common Core State standards. This bill puts two LIDs into the system where teachers can be trained on evaluation. The teacher evaluation project should be viewed as running a race, but not quite crossing the finish line because there is not sufficient professional development time for teachers. The Anacortes School District has been able to provide two days for all staff, plus two days for teachers and two additional days of release time, but that has been a result of the pilot project funding and district funding. Other school districts are wondering how they will be able to do this.

Principals should be included. They are not only the evaluators, but are themselves being evaluated under the new systems. Approximately one-third of school districts have not yet embarked on revising their evaluation systems. The only way to implement the new systems with fidelity is if all teachers truly understand the process.

(In support with concerns) The OSPI has spent a great deal of time developing training. There is concern that the bill as worded leaves training up to local school districts without adequate quality control. There is concern that some districts have yet to adopt one of the three approved frameworks. Because there must be reporting of evaluation results statewide, there must be some control over the format and content of workshops. That is the purpose of the project steering committee.

(Opposed) None.

Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Lytton, prime sponsor; Jennie Beltramini, Anacortes School District; Jerry Bender, Association of Washington School Principals; Lucinda Young, Washington Education Association; and Erin Jones, Federal Way Public Schools.

(In support with concerns) Alan Burke, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and Dave Powell, Stand for Children.