About The 5D+ Framework
The 5D was developed when UW Center for Educational Leadership – CEL faculty conducted a thorough review of the literature in both the learning sciences and effective teaching practices, and mined the instructional expertise from some of the very best teachers and school leaders in Washington and across the country. The 5D framework provides critical questions for school and district leaders to consider as they observe the teaching and learning process and builds on:
The 5D framework helps teachers and leaders develop a common language and a shared vision as they undertake the hard work of improving student achievement.
What is TPEP?
The Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP) is part of a broad education reform bill passed by the Washington State Legislature in 2010. The law establishes that teachers and principals will be evaluated based on a four-tiered system.
What are the core principles of TPEP?
TPEP Questions and Answers updated 3.2013
TPEP stands for the Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project. Washington State passed legislation
requiring school districts to implement a new evaluation system for all teachers and principals beginning
in 2013-14. This new system is intended to provide consistent, meaningful feedback to educators that
will more effectively promote continuous professional growth.
Why is the Ferndale School District focusing on TPEP now?
We are engaged in this specific work now to meet the deadlines included in the new state law. Our
schools are fortunate to have a strong cadre of staff at all levels, and we believe all employees deserve to
have meaningful opportunities to reflect on and improve their work. We appreciate the new evaluation
system’s emphasis on professional growth, rather than simple compliance, and believe it is in alignment
with the Ferndale School Districts belief that if we improve the quality of instruction in every classroom in our district, student achievement will increase.
Where are we in the process?
Many decisions in this process were already made by the state. These include:
All school districts in Washington State must begin using the new evaluation system for certificated staff and principals in 2013-14, with full implementation by 2016-17
Each district must choose an instructional framework from three options the state provided. An
instructional framework provides a common language:
(1) to create a shared understanding about effective teaching,
(2) to give and receive feedback, and
(3) to collect and act upon data to monitor growth.
Ferndale School District selected the Five Dimensions of Teaching and Learning 5D+ Instructional Framework, developed by the University of Washington Center for Educational Leadership (CEL).
Why did we choose the UW CEL 5 Dimensions as our instructional framework?
Washington State approved three instructional frameworks from which to choose:
While all of the frameworks are useful, our district work over the past three years has been around the adoption of the Five Dimensions of Teaching and Learning. Instructional Framework (prior to our awareness that this was a requirement for TPEP) In addition, of the three frameworks, the UW-CEL 5D+ framework represents the tightest alignment with district wide priorities1
ability to collaborate around professional development.
Setting up our new evaluation system is an evolving process as the state legislature and OPSI are making
on-going decisions that will affect the process. For now, our next steps include:
evaluators and teachers that focuses on the instructional framework and the new evaluation
Who will be included in the new evaluation system?
According to the latest guidance from OSPI, the new system is designed for principals, assistant
principals and classroom teachers. Classroom teachers are defined as staff who provide “academically
focused instruction” (including but not limited to English LA, Math, Science, Social Studies, Special
Education, Music, PE, Art, CTE, etc.) Instructional coaches may or may not be considered
classroom teachers under this definition depending on the nature of their role in the district.
Non-classroom teachers or ESAs (School Counselors, SLP, OT, PT, School Nurses, etc.) are not currently
included in the new evaluation system, nor are administrators who do not have the specific role of
principal or assistant principal. People in these positions will continue to be evaluated using our current
Who will be evaluated in the new process first?
Beginning in 2013-2014, ESSB 5895 requires all provisional and probationary classroom teachers to
receive comprehensive evaluations in the new process. Provisional teachers are those who are:
Probationary teachers are those who have received an unsatisfactory evaluation and are on a plan of
For administrators, ESSB 5895 requires that all principals who are in their first three consecutive years as
a principal, or who were rated unsatisfactory in 2012-2013, or who are in their first year in a district must
be included in the new evaluation system beginning in 2013-2014.
What are the new evaluation criteria beginning in the fall of 2013?
Previous Teacher Evaluation Criteria in Washington State
New Teacher Evaluation Criteria in Washington State
practice and student learning
Previous Principal Evaluation Criteria in Washington State
performance, capabilities and development
New Principal Evaluation Criteria in Washington State
1.Creating a school culture that promotes the ongoing improvement of learning and
teaching for students and staff
student achievement, including the use of multiple student data elements
with state and local district learning goals
What are the tiered ratings established by the state?
From ESSB 5895: The ratings/tiers shall be as follows:
How will proficiency be determined?
Under the new evaluation system, a classroom teacher will receive one of the four ratings (distinguished, proficient, basic, or unsatisfactory) for each of the eight new evaluation criteria. The legislation requires classroom observations, collections of evidence (for unobserved or unobservable criteria), and student growth data to be considered as well. The state has provided a formula for how to balance these components into an overall rating, which the state calls the “comprehensive summative evaluation
What are the state scoring guidelines for both the 5D+ Instructional framework rubrics and the student growth rubric determinations?
Each district in the state of Washington is required to use the state determined summative evaluation scoring bands guidelines to determine the final summative score for a certificated classroom teacher. It is up to individual districts to determine the scoring methodology for each of the individual eight teacher evaluation criterion.
At the end of a comprehensive evaluation cycle each teacher will receive a summative 5D+ rubric score of 1-4 as described above & will receive a student growth rating of low, average or high.
What role will student test scores play in teacher evaluations?
What we currently know comes from ESSB 5895:
“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 (recently identified as 3, 6 and 8). Student growth data that is relevant to the teacher and subject matter 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. 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.”
Because multiple measures are required and because “student growth” is defined as the change in a student’s achievement between two points in time, state test scores cannot be the only measure for this component of teacher evaluation. In fact, in Ferndale we feel classroom-based, school-based and district-based assessments are better indicators of student growth between two points in time specifically as it relates to the timing of the MSP/HSPE reporting timelines, the shift in two years to the CCSS as measured by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, and the fact that most a large percentage of teachers do not have teaching responsibilities that are assessed with a state assessment.
Multiple measures means at least two or more measures of student growth over time.
Who will evaluate teachers?
Principals will still evaluate teachers; they will just be using a new system with some teachers starting in
2013-2014. However in Ferndale, our vision includes the active participation of each teacher in their own professional growth which includes a comprehensive self-assessment to inform the focused evaluation cycle, to inform an individual “cycle of inquiry” with regards to identification of student growth goals and collection of artifacts to serve as evidence of rubric indicators for each of the eight teacher evaluation criteria.
How will we ensure that there is consistency among evaluators?
ESSB 5895 states:
“No administrator, principal, or other supervisory personnel may evaluate a teacher
without having received training in evaluation procedures. Before evaluating classroom teachers using the evaluation systems required under RCW 28A.405.100, principals and administrators must engage in professional development designed to implement the revised systems and maximize rater agreement.”
Training for principals and teachers will be provided to ensure deeper understanding of the teacher evaluation system and consistency in its application.
How will the new teacher evaluation system address teachers new to the profession?
For teachers in years 1-5, an overall summative rating on the 5D+ rubric of 2 (basic) is acceptable.
From ESSB 5895:
“A teacher will be deemed unsatisfactory if rated Level 1. A teacher will also be deemed unsatisfactory if he/she is a continuing contract employee (under RCW 28A.405.210) with more than five years of teaching experience, and overall rating of Level 2 has been received for two consecutive years or for two years within a consecutive three-year time period.”
Has the PGO (Professional Growth Option) gone away?
Teachers rated proficient for years may move from a comprehensive evaluation to a focused evaluation (formerly known as PGO). The focused evaluation cycle provides an opportunity to focus on one of the eight state criteria (based on self- assessments & previous years summative evaluations) and requires student growth measures. The criterion chosen for the focused evaluation must be approved by the teacher’s evaluator.
Will evaluation results for teachers and principals be shared?
As currently required by the state, evaluation results are reported to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction as a group of summative scores, not by individual summative scores, and not by name.
Will there be PD opportunities before being evaluated on the new system?
Yes. All teachers and principals required to participate in the new evaluation system will receive professional development both before and during the first year of implementation and subsequent years thereafter. Professional development will focus on:
Professional development opportunities will be ongoing, varied and replicable for those joining in the process during years 2 and 3 of new evaluation implementation.