Feedback Needed: Proposed Student Growth Goal Revisions
Welcome to the AWSP Leadership Framework Student Growth Goal revision feedback page. This space is designed to support transparency, shared understanding, and meaningful engagement as we continue to strengthen the Leadership Framework together.
The proposed revisions are the result of a collaborative, statewide effort led jointly by AWSP and OSPI. A diverse work group of principals, assistant principals, and central office leaders from across Washington came together to review the current language and develop revisions that reflect the realities of school leadership today. The group included leaders from small and large districts, as well as rural, suburban, and urban communities from both sides of the state. I was honored to be part of this work group and to help facilitate the process that led to the proposed language you see here.
As you review both the current and proposed Student Growth Goal language, we invite you to share your feedback. Your perspectives matter, and the feedback gathered through this process will directly inform the final revisions. The informational video on this page features my AI avatar, an intentional choice that reflects our shared exploration of how AI can thoughtfully support communication, learning, and leadership in education. Thank you for taking the time to engage in this work and for your continued leadership and support of your staff, students, and entire school communities.
Video Overview
Provide Feedback and/or Pilot the Revised SGGs
Provide Feedback
Provide your feedback on these revised Student Growth Goals.
Pilot the SGGs
Interested in piloting? Reach out to learn about the pilot process.
Questions
Do you have any questions about the process? Need help related to SGGs?
Compare Language Revisions
Component 3.5 | Provides evidence of student growth that results from the school improvement planning process:
Current Language
Components 3.5, 5.4, and 8.4 all reflect growth measures of student achievement, rather than principal actions. Component 3.5 is intended to analyze the growth of all or most of the students in the school which is an outgrowth of specific data analysis and the implementation of plans to improve student achievement, including the School Improvement Plan.
The range from Unsatisfactory to Distinguished is on a continuum from no improvement in student growth to significant improvement in student growth.
| Element | Unsatisfactory | Basic | Proficient | Distinguished |
| Growth in Student Learning | School improvement planning process results in no improvement in student academic growth. | School improvement planning process results in minimal improvement in student academic growth. | School improvement planning process results in measurable improvement in student academic growth. | School improvement planning process results in significant improvement in student academic growth. |
Proposed/Revised Language
Component 3.5 is intended to analyze the growth of all or most of the students in the school, which is an outgrowth of specific data analysis and the implementation of plans to improve student achievement, including the School Improvement Plan.
| Element | Unsatisfactory | Basic | Proficient | Distinguished |
| Growth in Student Learning | The school improvement planning process results in no or minimal improvement in student academic growth. | The school improvement planning process results in some improvement in student academic growth. | The school improvement planning process results in measurable improvement in academic growth including growth for some historically underserved student populations. | The school improvement planning process results in significant improvement in academic growth, in all/nearly all identified student groups, including growth for most historically underserved student populations. |
| Reflection | The leader does not provide evidence of taking responsibility for student growth and the connection to the school improvement planning process. | In reflection, the leader only considers the school improvement planning process generally. The reflection may be missing analysis of why students did or did not make progress. The leader has not identified clear next steps, or the identified next steps are uninformed by student progress and the school improvement planning process. | In reflection, the leader clearly describes the learning progress in relation to the school improvement planning process. The reflection includes analysis of why students did or did not make progress, and next steps for identified student groups. | In reflection, the leader clearly describes the learning progress in relation to the school improvement planning process. The reflection includes analysis of why students did or did not make progress, and next steps for identified student groups. The leader shares their school improvement planning systems, structures, and/or practices beyond their own building to support other instructional teams. |
Component 5.4 | Provides evidence of student growth of selected teachers.
Current Language
Components 3.5, 5.4, and 8.4 all reflect growth measures of student achievement, rather than principal actions. Component 5.4 is intended to analyze the growth of students assigned to a set of teachers that a principal identifies.
The range from Unsatisfactory to Distinguished is on a continuum from no improvement in student growth to significant improvement in student growth.
| Element | Unsatisfactory | Basic | Proficient | Distinguished |
| Growth in Student Learning | Multiple measures of student achievement of selected teachers show no academic growth. | Multiple measures of student achievement of selected teachers show minimal academic growth. | Multiple measures of student achievement of selected teachers show measurable academic growth. | Multiple measures of student achievement of selected teachers show significant academic growth. |
Proposed/Revised Language
Component 5.4 is intended to analyze the growth of students assigned to a set of teachers that a principal/assistant principal identifies.
| Element | Unsatisfactory | Basic | Proficient | Distinguished |
| Growth in Student Learning | Multiple measures of student achievement of selected teachers show no or minimal academic growth. | Multiple measures of student achievement of selected teachers show some academic growth. | Multiple measures of student achievement of selected teachers show measurable academic growth, including growth for some historically underserved student populations. | Multiple measures of student achievement of selected teachers show significant academic growth, including growth for most historically underserved populations. |
| Reflection | The school leader does not provide evidence of taking responsibility for analyzing the growth of students assigned to a selected group of teachers. | In reflection, the school leader provides a limited description of systems, structures, or practices they have used to support teachers to impact student achievement. | In reflection, the school leader clearly describes systems, structures, or practices they have used to support teachers to impact student achievement and describes how they will leverage that knowledge for a selected group of teachers. | In reflection, the school leader clearly describes systems, structures, or practices they have used to support teachers to impact student achievement and describes how they will leverage that knowledge for a selected group of teachers. The leader shares these systems, structures, and/or practices beyond their own building to support other instructional teams. |
Component 8.4 | Provides evidence of growth in student learning.
Current Language
As in Components 3.5 and 5.4, this component is a reflection of this criterion displayed in terms of student achievement. Component 8.4 is designed to analyze subsets of the student population that are identified for the purpose of closing opportunity and achievement gaps between these subsets and the student population as a whole.
The range from Unsatisfactory to Distinguished is on a continuum from no improvement in student growth to significant improvement in student growth.
| Element | Unsatisfactory | Basic | Proficient | Distinguished |
| Growth in Student Learning | Achievement data from multiple sources or data points show no evidence of student growth toward narrowing gaps of targeted student groups. | Achievement data from multiple sources or data points show minimum evidence of student growth toward narrowing gaps of targeted student groups. | Achievement data from multiple sources or data points show measurable evidence of student growth toward narrowing gaps of targeted student groups. | Achievement data from multiple sources or data points show consistent evidence of student growth toward narrowing gaps of targeted student groups. |
Proposed/Revised Language
Component 8.4 is designed to analyze subsets of the student population that are identified for the purpose of closing opportunity and achievement gaps between these subsets and the student population as a whole.
| Element | Unsatisfactory | Basic | Proficient | Distinguished |
| Growth in Student Learning | Achievement data from multiple sources or data points show no or minimal evidence of narrowing gaps between the student population as a whole and historically underserved student groups/subsets of students who are not demonstrating growth. | Achievement data from multiple sources or data points show some evidence of narrowing gaps between the student population as a whole and historically underserved student groups/subsets of students who are not demonstrating growth. | Achievement data from multiple sources or data points show measurable evidence of narrowing gaps between the student population as a whole and historically underserved student groups/subsets of students who are not demonstrating growth. | Achievement data from multiple sources or data points show significant evidence of narrowing gaps between the student population as a whole and historically underserved student groups/subsets of students who are not demonstrating growth. |
| Reflection | The school leader does not provide evidence of taking responsibility for analyzing the growth of historically underserved students/subsets of students not demonstrating growth compared to the student population as a whole. | In reflection, the school leader provides a limited description of systems, structures, or practices they have used to impact student achievement and close gaps for those who are historically underserved/subsets of students not demonstrating growth compared to the student population as a whole. | In reflection, the school leader clearly describes systems, structures, or practices they have used to impact student achievement and close gaps for those who are historically underserved/subsets of students not demonstrating growth compared to the student population as a whole. | In reflection, the school leader clearly describes systems, structures, or practices they have used to impact student achievement and close gaps for those who are historically underserved/subsets of students not demonstrating growth compared to the student population as a whole. The leader shares these systems, structures and/or practices beyond their own building to support other instructional teams. |