Transcript Power Point for Staff Presentations

Oregon's Framework for
Teacher Evaluation
What do North Clackamas teachers and
administrators need to know?
SB 290 Design Committee
• John Beight- HR
• Sylvia Biggs- RCMS
• Alyson Brant- ACMS
• Doug Bridge- Whitcomb
• Christine Garcia- CHS
• Rachael Hall- Sunnyside
• Rob Holloway- SSS
• Cam Kitchen- Mt. Scott
• Jodi Lee- Duncan
• Marty Lefkowitz- CHS
• Jason McCammon- SSC
• Jenna Miller- HVMS
• Mark Pinder- MHS
• Mike Potter- View Acres
• Shelly Reggiani- ELL
• Aeylin Summers- DO
• Robin Troche- MHS and
NCEA
• Erin Whitlock- OEA
A Brief History Lesson

How did we come to do this work?
 Why now?
Oregon's Waiver and Teacher Evaluation
Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waiver to get out of
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements needed certain
assurances:
• Senate Bill 290 (2011)
- Evaluation systems collaboratively designed with teachers and exclusive
bargaining representative
- Aligned to model core teaching standards
- Multiple-measures to determine proficiencies
• ESEA-No Child Left Behind Waiver (2012)
- Consensus evaluation framework
- Student growth as a “significant factor”
- 2012-2013 development of a model within the framework for each district
SB 290 Requirements
Teacher and administrator evaluations systems
must:
• Provide examples of multiple measures;
• Use four performance levels of effectiveness;
• Have student learning as a significant consideration in
the evaluation;
• Evaluate teachers and administrators on a regular
cycle;
• Have district superintendents report regularly to local
boards on their evaluation systems and educator
effectiveness.
Oregon's Waiver and Teacher Evaluation
ESEA-No Child Left Behind Waiver:
• Every teacher evaluation in Oregon must include multiple, valid
measures tied to established standards of teaching.
• Prohibits evaluations based solely on standardized tests. Requires
multiple, valid measures of student learning when student growth is
considered in an evaluation.
• Requires districts to provide teachers the opportunity to set their
own student learning goals.
• Local association and district determine measures in evaluation
system consistent with SB 290.
• Oregon’s Waiver does not require school districts to set an arbitrary
percentage weight for student growth in individual teacher
evaluations.
Oregon's Framework Required Elements

All district teacher and administrator evaluation and support
systems must include the following five elements:
1
2
Standards of
Professional
Practice
Differentiated
Performance
Levels
(4 levels)
3
4
5
Multiple
Measures
Evaluation and
Professional
Growth Cycle
Aligned
Professional
Learning
1) Standards of Professional Practice
Adopted Model Core Teaching Standards and
Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards
• Interstate Teacher Assessment & Support Consortium
(InTASC)
• Four Domains:
1- The Learner and Learning
2- Content
3- Instructional Practice
4- Professional Responsibility
2) Differentiated Performance Levels
Teacher and administrator performance assessed on the
Standards of Professional Practice on four levels:
Level 1 – Does not meet standards
Level 2 – Making progress toward standards
Level 3 – Meets standards
Level 4 – Exceeds standards
• Rubrics describe performance at each level for each standard.
• Rubrics guide individuals toward improving their practice at
the next performance level
• District team has selected the Danielson rubric for our model.
3) Multiple Measures
Oregon teacher
evaluations must
include measures
from three
categories of
evidence:
Aligned to the
standards of
professional
practice
3) Multiple Measures
(A) Professional Practice
– Teachers: Evidence of effectiveness of planning,
delivery of instruction, and assessment of student
learning
(B) Professional Responsibilities
– Teachers: Evidence of teachers’ progress toward
their own professional goals and contribution to
schoolwide goals, including collegial learning
3) Multiple Measures
C) Student Learning and Growth
• “Student growth” defined as “the change in student
achievement between two or more points in time.”
• “Significant” means student growth must play a
meaningful role in evaluations.
• Teachers, in collaboration with their supervisors/
evaluators, will establish student growth goals and select
evidence from a variety of valid measures and regularly
assess progress.
• Pilots will help determine the definition of “significant.”
3) Multiple Measures
Measures of student learning and growth include three types of measures:
Category Types of Measures of
Student Learning
(aligned to standards)
Examples include, but are not limited to:
1
State or national
standardized tests
Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
(OAKS), SMARTER Balanced (when adopted),
English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA),
Extended Assessments
2
Common national,
international, regional,
district-developed
measures
ACT, PLAN, EXPLORE, AP, IB, DIBELS, C-PAS, other
national measures; or common assessments
approved by the district or state as valid, reliable
and able to be scored comparably across schools or
classrooms
3
Classroom-based or
Student performances, portfolios, products,
school-wide measures projects, work samples, tests
3) Multiple Measures
• Multiple measures of student growth allows for inclusion of
all educators not just in state tested areas (e.g. the arts,
music, CTE, ELL, special education).
• All teachers held to the same standards, i.e., Model Core
Teaching Standards.
• Evaluation processes/tools differentiated to accommodate
the unique skills and responsibilities for teachers of students
with disabilities and English Learners.
4) Evaluation and Professional Growth Cycle
Critical steps
in the cycle
Collaborative
process,
ongoing
feedback,
focus on
improving
effectiveness
4) Evaluation and Professional Growth Cycle
• Frequency of Evaluations
– Probationary teachers – every year
– Contract teachers – at least every two years
– Probationary administrators – every year
– Administrators – at least every two years
5) Aligned Professional Development
• Goal is to improve professional practice.
• Evaluations inform educators of strengths and
weaknesses.
• System will support informed decisions for
professional growth.
• Professional learning must be relevant to the
educator's goals and needs.
Timelines
• Our district is partnered with OEA and ODE to pilot the
“multiple measures” component of the system from midFebruary to mid-May.
• We must submit our assurances to the state for both the
certified and administrative systems by June, 2013.
• In the 2013-2014 SY, we will be evaluated according to
these new systems.
• We will be “held harmless” for the student achievement
part for the year.
• We can still make changes next year as we work the
system.
The new systems are Not about:
• Merit pay,
• Reducing any staff member to a score,
• Making staff members fearful,
• Pitting staff members or whole schools against
each other.
The new system is about:
• Aligning the system to support staff in teaching
and supporting the growth and achievement of
all students.
• Supporting staff members in the complex work
of teaching and learning.
• Supporting staff in taking risks to help the
students who need the most help.
• Helping everyone get what they need to grow:
certified staff, administrators and kids.
Questions?
Questions will be tracked, answered and
posted on a special section of the website, so
all staff can access shared information.