Tpep Analysis - Mcdowell and Anthony - Final

The Surprising Effect of the TPEP Policy Implementation in the Bellevue School District
Jean Anthony & Eric McDowell

University of Washington

Leadership for Learning Leadership for Equitable Systems Module
Professors Knapp and Kinoshita
May 9, 2014

Anthony & McDowell TPEP Analysis - 1

Introduction
In March 2010, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6696 (E2SSB 6696) passed creating the
Washington State Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot (TPEP). This landmark legislation, now codified
as RCW 28A.405.100, changed the state teacher evaluation system that had been in place for over
twenty years. In this report, we hope to give you brand new principals and evaluators in the Bellevue
School District a glimpse into the implementation of this policy over the past four years.
In researching the implementation of TPEP in Bellevue, the authors met with four key players
who formed a powerful coalition, one that remains strong to this day:
Eva Collins, Deputy Superintendent,
Patty Siegwarth, Executive Director,
Michele Miller, Bellevue Education Association (BEA) President, and
Susan Jarnot-Bentham, BEA member, current TPEP Coordinator and joint-committee member.

Additionally, we note that Eric is a TPEP Implementation Committee member, was involved in and
made leadership moves during policy implementation from nearly the very beginning of the process.

Context
As you know, the Bellevue School District serves about 19,000 students in 15 regular elementary
schools, 1 Spanish Immersion elementary school, 1 Mandarin dual language elementary school, 5
regular middle schools, 4 regular high schools and 2 alternative middle/high schools. The district
employs roughly 2,000 people, including 1,100 teachers. Bellevue has been a national leader in
education and has been featured in U.S. News & World Report as well as Newsweek and the

Washington Post as one of the nations top districts. Bellevues five high schools typically finish in the
top 100 nationally when it comes to high school rankings.

Background
Prior to passage of E2SSB 6696, Assistant Superintendent Eva Collins had been researching
instructional frameworks due to the inconsistency of teacher evaluation in the district. In fact, she had
been actively working on the improvement of teaching and learning since 1996 when then
Superintendent Dr. Michael Riley led the first of its kind training on teacher evaluation for all principals
and central office leaders in the District. Importantly, even though Dr. Riley trained principals on
evaluation year after year, there was still great inconsistency from one principal to the next, mostly
because the evaluative criteria used were not truly an instructional framework in that they did not give
both teachers and leaders a common language to describe good instruction. This all changed with the
passage of E2SSB 6696.
One thing that all four interviewees agreed upon was that the implementation of the legislation in
the Bellevue School District was designated to a joint Bellevue Education Association (BEA) Bellevue
School District (BSD) committee. However, initial reasons given for the formation of this joint
committee varied slightly from person to person. Eva recalled that after passage of E2SSB 6696 in
2010, the Superintendent at the time Dr. Amalia Cudeiro, had heard about and was very interested in
having Bellevue be one of the original TPEP pilot districts. Eva then met with BEA President Michele
Miller and BEA Executive Director Kathleen Heiman during Meet and Confer to discuss the idea of
forming a joint BEA-BSD committee to explore instructional frameworks given the pending legislation
and the general direction the state was headed. However, Bellevue was not selected as a TPEP pilot
district. A memo dated July 15, 2011 records that attempt and the aftermath of not being selected.

After the passage of SB 6696, the BEA and the District entered into an agreement to participate
in the state-wide pilot process. While not selected by the state as one of the pilot districts, a
group of dedicated BEA members and administrators have continued to meet and discuss the
development of a new evaluation system (Bellevue School District, 2011).
Eva recalled that Dr. Cudeiro then directed the district team to apply for a TPEP Regional
Implementation Grant (RIG). Taking a slightly different viewpoint, Patty noted in her interview that she
remembers the committee being formed out of the impetus to improve teaching and learning as opposed
to any dictate from the state. She recalled that she and Michele were both interested in gaining clarity
about effective instruction due to the varying experiences teachers were having with respect to the
evaluation of their practices. Michele Miller, however, added a very different viewpoint. She remarked
that one of the key reasons for the formation of the joint committee was that by late 2010/early 2011,
contract negotiations had already begun and teacher evaluation was and is a large part of the contract.
Michele Miller, BEA President, and Patty Siegwarth, BSD Executive Director, were chosen to
lead this new joint committee. This was a bold move because as Patty recalled, past co-facilitation by
BEA/BSD had not worked. Moreover, the joint committee began its work in a very heated political
climate within the district. For years prior to the passage of E2SSB 6696, the Bellevue Education
Association and the Bellevue School District co-existed in an atmosphere of open conflict if not all out
war. BEA Presidents Debby Nissan and her successor Stephen Miller (husband of current President
Michele Miller) were distrustful of and angered by the centralization of power, which had occurred
under then Superintendent Riley. Specifically, they along with many in the association, felt that the
district had gone too far by creating common curriculum across all schools and at all grade levels and by
codifying that curriculum in an on-line curriculum web accessible by teachers, students and the parent
community. To put it bluntly, they felt that the district was trying to teacher-proof education and as a
result, both the BEA leadership and membership lost trust in the district. Over time, this culture of

distrust turned into a climate of open conflict and hostility, which ultimately resulted in the teacher
strike of 2008, occurring just a year after Dr. Riley left for the College Board.
Despite initial optimism in 2009 over the selection of a new superintendent, by the 2010-11
school year the relationship between the Association and the District, especially with new
Superintendent Cudeiro, had soured. Importantly, 2010-11 was a bargaining year because the current
contract, which was settled only after the before mentioned 8-day strike that delayed the start of school
in 2008, was expiring. The mistrust between the Association and Dr. Cudeiro came to a head on
August 31, 2011 when the members of the Association simultaneously ratified a new two-year contract
and issued a vote of no confidence in Dr. Cudeiro, each with a 97% pass rate (Bellevue Reporter,
2011). The fact that the TPEP joint committee stayed together and continued to work on
implementation of the policy despite the turmoil is a testament to the hard work of both Patty and
Michele in leading the committee.

Implementation Timeline
As mentioned previously, TPEP was born out of the 2010 legislative session in Washington.
However, as noted on the TPEP site, the evaluation provisions in the bill were part of a larger reform
effort made during Washingtons Race to the Top application (TPEP-WA, 2014). The chart below
gives you an overview of the implementation of TPEP in the Bellevue School District:
Date Details
Spring 2010 Bellevue applies for, but is not chosen as, a pilot district
Spring 2010 Joint BEA/BSD TPEP Committee formed
Fall 2010 Joint committee begins reviewing instructional frameworks
Summer 2011 BSD approved as a RIG I district
SY 2011-12 RIG I trainings and preparation at ESD 121
SY 2012-13
TPEP pilot including non-continuing, provisional and volunteer
continuing contract teachers

SY 2013-14
TPEP rollout as new evaluation system included focused evaluation
for continuing contract teachers who piloted comprehensive in 2012-13
SY 2014-15
At least of remaining non-TPEP continuing contract teachers rolled
into new system (all who volunteer will be accepted)
SY 2015-16
Mandatory deadline for 100% of classroom teachers to be in the new
evaluation system

Once the joint committee was formed, their first task was to begin looking at instructional
frameworks. At the time, there was no guidance from the policy on which frameworks to choose so the
committee found five that had been published, including Danielson, Marzano and CEL 5D. Michele
remembers that this worked out perfectly because the joint committee had five teachers and five
administrators on it so each teacher-administrator pair began looking at one of the frameworks. The
committee looked at the frameworks in terms of what they jointly valued as a district, what they thought
best captured the idea of effective instruction, and what the best fit for the district might be. Michele
also took questions about each framework back to the BEA Representative Council for discussion and
feedback. As time passed, the committee quickly coalesced around the Danielson Framework, which as
it turned out was a fortuitous move as the state eventually prescribed that districts could only choose one
of three frameworks, Danielson being one of them. While Eva Collins had been researching
instructional frameworks separately from the work of the TPEP committee, she too had landed on the
Danielson framework. Early on Eva resolved to accept whichever framework was chosen, as she
believed so strongly in the work being done jointly and wanted to ensure the authenticity of the work of
the committee.
As noted in the table, Bellevue began a pilot implementation of the policy in the 2012-13
school year. Per state law, all provisional and non-continuing teachers were automatically in with
respect to the new evaluation system. However, continuing contract teachers were given an option to
remain on the evaluation provisions of the negotiated collective bargaining agreement or volunteer to
join a TPEP pilot. During this pilot year, continuing contract teachers who opted-in would have

contractual protections not available to provisional or non-continuing contact teachers. Specifically, if
an evaluator for a continuing contract teacher in the pilot had serious performance concerns about that
teacher, he or she would be moved back to the old system and would suffer no penalties under the
TPEP system. In the RIG I pilot year, more than 400 BSD teachers were involved as were all Principals
and Assistant Principals and all participants were on the comprehensive version of the evaluation where
all 8 criteria and all 22 Danielson components would be rated.
2012 13 also turned out to be a bargaining year as the contract approved in the tumultuous
summer of 2011 was expiring. However, as opposed to the strike of 2008 and the no confidence vote
of 2011, the contract negotiations of 2013 were to be marked by unexpected and unheard-of cooperation
and respect between the Association and the District. One statistic pretty much tells the story. The
contract of 2011 took 47 bargaining days and extended well into the summer with ratification occurring
just days before the start of school. The contract of 2013 took just 9 days of bargaining and was ratified
on June 5, 2013, weeks before the end of the school year. The speed and success of bargaining in 2013
was due in large part to the relational trust that had been built since 2011 by the members of the joint
TPEP committee. The structure of the committee, with both BSD and BEA representatives, coupled
with authentic work allowed the association members and district administrators to establish
relationships built on respect, personal regard, and competence in core role responsibility and personal
integrity (Bryk & Schneider, 2003). This relational trust allowed for BEA Leadership to give newly
chosen Superintendent Tim Mills and his ideas about interest based strategies a chance. Interestingly
and importantly, many of the members of the joint bargaining team, including author Eric McDowell,
were members of the joint TPEP committee.
This year, 2013-14, is the year when the final P in TPEP changed from pilot to project. The
pilot is over and the TPEP evaluation system is now the law of the land. However, the legislation
allowed for districts to make local decisions about how and when to get their teachers into the new

system. Bellevue chose a three-part phase-in process where in the first year, almost all the piloteers
from the RIG I pilot year would continue in TPEP along with any new non-continuing or provisional
contract teachers and other new volunteer continuing contract teachers. Given that almost 50% of the
classroom teaching force was involved in the pilot year, the goal for this year was to have approximately
65% to 75% of all teachers in TPEP. Additionally, continuing contract piloteers who received proficient
or distinguished summative scores in 2012-13 were given the option to move to the focused evaluation,
and almost all of them did. Future plans are to phase-in of the remaining continuing contract teachers
in the 2014-15 school year and phase in the final remaining continuing contract teachers in 2015-16, the
year that the legislation mandates as the deadline for all classroom teachers to be on the new TPEP
evaluation system. There was an overwhelmingly positive response by the teachers in Bellevue to be
early participants and the district has exceeded its goal due in part to the cultural shift the co-facilitated
committee inspired.
As the implementation continues to proceed, one of the goals of the joint BEA-BSD committee
is to implement a process where eventually, of all teachers are on the focused evaluation and are on
the comprehensive evaluation in any given year. Per the law, teachers on the focused evaluation can
remain on focused for three years before having to return to comprehensive. Eric recalls that the
committee discussed this goal at length. The focused evaluation is all about a teacher working on
her/his goals and evaluating their impact on students. The committee felt that having most teachers on
the focused evaluation would send a clear message that, in Bellevue, TPEP is about professional growth
and is not a system out to get teachers.

Embracing Multiple Perspectives
As noted in the introduction, in order to gather the information needed to analyze the
implementation of TPEP in the Bellevue School District, key leaders were interviewed and their

leadership moves (their decisions, actions and interpretations) explored. Our four interviewees, Eva,
Patty, Michele and Susan, were asked to respond to a series of questions designed to gain both factual
information and personal interpretations. The interview questions used are as follows:
How did different leaders and teams engage with various groups to shape the design of the policy?
What is the underlying theory of action designed by the original committee and how has that
changed?
What are the glitches in the system? What are the surprising, unintended results of the process to
date?
How has this policy impacted the improvement of teaching and learning? From whose perspective?
Given that TPEP is currently being implemented, how will feedback and future decision-making be
structured? Who will be engaged in that process?

In addition, Jean interviewed Eric since he has been and currently is part of the leadership for
TPEP implementation. Eric has a unique vantage point having been involved in the implementation
process from the beginning and now after having studied it from a more analytical point of view, it
seemed important to include his perspective. The interview questions for Eric, therefore, were
structured slightly differently in order to take advantage of his perspective:
Now that you have conducted structured interviews with a number of other key leaders of the
TPEP implementation, how has your understanding changed?
What were the key leadership moves and who made them?
What should have been done differently?
What surprised you about this process?
What are the imperative, future leadership moves and who should make them?

What conditions need to be in place in order for TPEP to ensure improved teaching and learning
for each and every student?
Bellevues vision includes conducting our work through the lens of ensuring equity for all
students. How does, or will, TPEP ensure that equity becomes a reality?

Each interview shed a slightly different light on the implementation process and give slightly
different insight to how the process started, what helped shape it, how different people were or were not
authentically engaged and where the future direction should go. For example, several interviewees
stated that the committee was a made up of a group that truly represented the district, yet others
questioned why ELL and special education were not at the table. This demonstrates the importance of
viewing leadership from multiple frames. Had the leaders used something like the Bolman and Deal
(2003) concepts of frames and reframing to improve organizational leadership, perhaps ELL and special
education (including ESAs such as psychologists, speech and language pathologists, occupational
therapists, physical therapists and social workers) would have been included. As it stands now, there
currently are no known plans about how to address the needs of these groups in the future TPEP
implementation process.

Key Moves By Key Players

All in all, Bellevues planning and implementation of the TPEP process has been quite
successful. Through our interviews and analysis we found, however, that there were a number of key
moves made by key players, as described below, which combined to create this success.

Co-facilitation: Each of the interviewees emphasized how this was instrumental to the success of TPEP
and the turn-around in the district culture. This model prompted people to reach across the table to work
side-by-side without hidden agendas. The co-facilitation was authentic and visible throughout the

district. Interviewees each made strong statements about how this one thing has indelibly changed the
culture in Bellevue. As stated earlier in this paper, having the TPEP committee work being co-
facilitated by BEA and BSD laid the groundwork for a much more collaborative contract bargaining
utilizing interest-based strategies. This atmosphere of transparency, free from hidden agendas and
manipulation, is also sustained and nurtured by the beliefs and practices of the current superintendent,
Tim Mills.

Making personal choices to let bygones be bygones: Like the concept of personal regard in Bryk &
Schneiders (2003) work on relational trust, Patty and Michele intentionally made choices to extend
themselves beyond their formal roles in order to accomplish something that they both agreed was
important (though their reasons for importance were somewhat different). There had been a number of
situations and personnel issues that played a role in their decision. Patty and Michele shared a common
goal to make the committee and its processes work unbelievably well despite feelings of distrust within
certain aspects of the district. They, along with many other participants, were determined to be rid of
the negative undercurrent that still lingered. As the committee evolved and through the modeling being
done by the co-facilitators, relationships were forged on respect and personal integrity, which furthered
the changed culture throughout the district.

Staying focused on using the instructional frameworks to improve teaching rather than as an
evaluative tool: Prior to the state requiring that the instructional frameworks be adopted as they were,
the committee had spent a year unpacking and digging deep into the Danielson frameworks. There were
hours and hours of work done together and people were really beginning to understand, for example, the
nuanced differences between terms such as cognitively vibrant and cognitively busy. The team spent
valuable time reworking the frameworks to translate them and make them Bellevues. While the

interviewees expressed a sense of deflation when the state mandated that the frameworks be adopted as
published, the interviewees also described a silver lining in that the frameworks are now well understood
throughout the district. The examining and reworking of the frameworks afforded opportunities for
shared experiences between committee members and strengthened their relationships, making future
conflict more likely to be resolved. The committee members had gone through something meaningful
together and were able to appreciate and value the work. Additionally, different groups had also un-
packed the rubrics and by doing so, increased and deepened their knowledge of the Danielson
Framework. For example, Eric led a meeting where the focus for all principals was to read, digest,
analyze and eventually wordsmith the rubrics to make them more clear for teachers. Principals spent
hours poring over every last word and made countless suggestions for improvements. While they were
later frustrated by the state clarification, principals were grateful for the time because they gained deep
knowledge about the wording in the Danielson rubrics.

Establishing the TPEP Coordinator position: This position was established as the result of problem
solving work the committee engaged in to ensure that the TPEP workload was manageable for the co-
facilitators. Knowing that high quality implementation was both desired and expected, and that other
important work would not go away, the TPEP Coordinator was hired for the 2013-14 school year. The
position remains in the budget for several years in the future order to establish continuity and maintain
the momentum to complete the work in the next phase of implementation. The TPEP Coordinator
position was designed to be a boundary spanner (Honig & Ikemoto 2008, Wegner 1998) and not just
another committee member to complete mundane tasks. Rather, the position was intentionally created to
bring the edges of the two groups closer together so that the deep and authentic culture of collaboration
that had just been built would not collapse overnight. Conflict through the decision-making process was
and is inevitable. However, this boundary spanner, the TPEP Coordinator, could assist in mitigating it.

Making the best use of time: Soon after selection as a RIG I district, the joint committee
enthusiastically began to attend RIG meetings at the ESD, eager to continue the work they had already
started. After a short while it became evident that the constant shifting of the states implementation
requirements impeded the efficacy of the meetings. Given that the ESD meetings were not meaningful
for the entire committee to attend, the co-facilitators gave themselves and the committee permission to
use the time differently. Eva, Patty and Michele attended the ESD meetings to keep abreast of the
frequent changes while sending the rest of the committee to meeting rooms in the same building to get
the work done. Rather than letting resentment or frustration build up, the co-facilitators demonstrated
respect for each other and the committee and seized this as an opportunity to use peoples time
productively.
Eric recalled that this time apart brought the members of the committee even closer together.
The people in the room teachers and principals were given the charge to develop professional
development opportunities, create implementation calendars, discuss the roll in process, and genuinely
work together to make the implementation of TPEP, first as a pilot and later as a program, as powerful a
tool as possible for improving teaching and learning. Because superiors like Eva, Patty and Michele
were not in the room, the remaining members felt empowered to make decisions and the bonds between
them deepened further.

True collaboration around both the teacher evaluation system and the principal evaluation
system: A key move made by Patty and Michele was the decision that the joint committee would look
at both the teacher and the principal evaluation simultaneously. In retrospect, this may have been one of
the single most powerful moves made. Teachers had never been involved in discussing, let alone
deciding, how principals would be evaluated. Principal evaluations were not delegated to a task force

separate from the committee and made up of administrators and central office leaders. This was ground
breaking for Bellevue. Several of the interviewees remember the surprise of the teachers on the
committee when it was clear that they would be looking at both evaluation systems. This move
furthered the transparency and authenticity of the joint work and solidified the focus on professional
growth over routine evaluation. A spirit of we are all in this together began to spread and that spirit
exists to this very day especially around the brand new student growth requirements of the policy.

Improvement of Teaching and Learning
The question of how TPEP is or will improve teaching and learning remains mostly unanswered.
Our interviewees all agreed that the new system creates the need and provides the structure for deep and
rich conversations around improving instruction and that is in itself an improvement. Michele Miller
noted that the Danielson framework is a beautiful thing, a great tooland gives quality feedback rather
than feedback being administrator-dependent. There is a general sense of optimism for the potential of
TPEP has for improving the quality of teaching and learning, yet there is also an air of caution. This is
particularly true when considering which teachers volunteered to participate early on (the piloteers)
and which did not. Teachers in different phases of their teaching career may see the benefits of the
system differently. For example, Susan, Patty and Michelle made note of the clarity TPEP brings to the
novice teacher as he or she is just learning the job. They also commented on the benefits being realized
by those veteran teachers who are reflective practitioners as they are thriving in TPEP.
Nevertheless, in one-way or another, each of our interviewees also commented on those teachers
who will be the last to sign on. Michele commented on how there is, for some, a lingering doubt about
TPEP. She said that some view it very much as having a hidden agenda or see it as a gotcha to
teachers and her theory is that this is left-over emotion from the drama the Association and District were
in several years back. Eric mentioned that most of the remaining folks are veteran teachers who have

been under the same evaluation system their entire careers. Change is difficult even if that change
brings the promise of improvement. Paying close attention to how the final group of the teachers are
brought on-board will likely be a key to future success and will take a different kind of forethought and
finessing than the initial phases.

Theory of Action Then and Now
Interestingly, the committees theory of action has remained constant throughout the
implementation and focuses on the improvement of teaching and learning. Although not written down
anywhere and not identified as such, their theory of action, as articulated by the interviewees, is:
If we build the capacity of our teachers to teach in an effective manner and if teachers,
teacher leaders and administrators understand the Danielson instructional framework
and use common language to describe effective teaching, then teachers will improve their
teaching and become more effective and then student learning will improve.
Despite difficulties between them, both the Association and the District have been and remain
committed to the improvement of student learning. The challenge before us is this: during the last two
years of phase-in, how do we convince reluctant or hostile teachers that in Bellevue, TPEP really is
about the improvement of teaching and learning and has no agenda whatsoever other than that.

Conclusion
Bellevues implementation of TPEP began in a turbulent political environment yet, through the
hard work of the joint committee and because of the relational trust that was built up amongst members,
it has changed that environment into one of mutual respect and authentic collaboration. In response to
the early and constant shifts in the law and in the interpretation of the law by OSPI, committee members
were forced to engage in joint work where each member was invested in trying to make sure that this

once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve teaching and learning did not pass them by. By focusing early
and often on the Danielson Framework as a means to foster conversation about and describe effective
teaching and not just as an evaluation tool, association and district leaders built trust with the cadre of
teachers who either volunteered to join the pilot or who were forced to join by the state due to their
contract status. These early adopters spread the word and Bellevue now anticipates the overwhelming
majority of teachers to be on the new evaluation system next year, a year prior to the deadline.
Moreover, because the focus has been more on instruction and less on evaluation, because the four-
tiered system helps give teachers a roadmap to improvement, because principals and teachers are both
using the same language to describe effective instruction, and because all parties are getting reports that
those conversations between principals and teachers are much richer and more focused than in the past,
the prospects for improved student learning are bright. Yet, the work of TPEP is not done!
What remains to be completed in the final phases of the roll-out will require specific conditions
for success, such as the TPEP Coordinator position being filled by a well-qualified individual who has
competence in their responsibilities (Bryk & Schneider, 2003), carefully planned work with the late-
adopters or reticent participants and ample time and resources to make the work do-able for both
teachers and principals. Additionally, the work to date has been silent on how those who have been left
out (counselors, psychologists, social worker and other special education staff) will be included. It is
imperative that the committee members begin to address these issues in order be truly inclusive of all
BEA members and to keep the momentum going of the positive cultural changes.
Importantly, equity is not specifically addressed in TPEP, particularly when considering the
Danielson framework, which allows a teacher to be proficient and even distinguished without reaching
each and every student. The district has made a bold and long-term commitment to getting each and
every student to meet the district goals of academic success, college and career ready, and a positive and
productive life. The districts commitment speaks directly to the 15% of students who do not meet

standards and who are, predominantly, our students of color. The equity work in the district involves
addressing multiple aspects including hiring practices, student discipline, family engagement, personal
transformation, curriculum and instructional practices. The instructional core is where equity will truly
be practiced (or not), making a natural connection between equity and TPEP.
Back in 2010, no one could have predicted the wonderful surprise that TPEP would provide the
Bellevue School District. The policy, enacted in a time of controversy nationally and locally, created a
perfect storm of forces that ended up changing the district in fundamental ways. We cant overestimate
the effect the joint committee had on Association-District relaionships. Before the TPEP committee,
there was dysfunction, disharmony and distrust. Afterwards, because of their commitment, their
tenacity, their leadership and their hard work, there was function, harmony and trust. Who would have
thought that an evaluation policy would have the surprising and unintended effect of uniting a
fragmented district?


Bibliography
Bellevue Reporter. (2011, September 6). News. Retrieved from Bellevue Reporter:
http://www.bellevuereporter.com/news/129341093.html

Bellevue School District. (2011, July 15). Possible BEA/BSD Settlement. Retrieved from Bellevue
School District:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NQhywgqpszgJ:www.bsd405.org/portal
s/0/hr/BEA%2520Bargaining%25202011/July%252015/BSD/1499_001.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct
=clnk&gl=us

Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Bryk, Anthony S., and Barbara Schneider. "Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for School Reform.
Educational Leadership 60.6 (2003): 40-44.

Honig, M. I. & Ikemoto, G. S. (2008). Adaptive Assistance for Learning Improvement Efforts: The
Case of the Institute for Learning, Peabody Journal of Education, 83:3, 328-363.

TPEP-WA. (2014, May 3). About TPEP. Retrieved from Washington State Teacher/Principal Evaluation
Project: http://tpep-wa.org/about-tpep/

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. The Systems Thinker, June.

Tpep Analysis - Mcdowell and Anthony - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tpep Analysis - Mcdowell and Anthony - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Surprising Effect of the TPEP Policy Implementation in the Bellevue School District

Jean Anthony & Eric McDowell

You might also like