DRAFT 4.0PRESENTED TO THE

OREGON STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONMAY 17, 2012

Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator

Evaluation and Support Systems

Educator Effectiveness

From CCSSO State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness

INDUCTION MENTORING

Educator Effectiveness

Collaborative Efforts = Greater CoherenceCoalition for Quality Teaching & LearningIn December 2011, the State Board adopted

Model Core Teaching Standards (OAR 581-022-1724)

Educational Leadership Standards (OAR 581-022-1725)

Teacher/Administrator Evaluations (OAR 581-022-1723)

INTRODUCTION

Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator

Evaluation and Support Systems

Educator Effectiveness Workgroup representation: K12 teachers K12 principals District superintendents and other administrators Oregon Education Association (OEA) Confederation of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) Local education associations representatives Local school board representative Higher education teacher and administrator preparation

programs Non-profit, advocacy organizations Northwest Regional Comprehensive Center (NWRCC) ODE staff

Oregon FrameworkINTRODUCTION

Oregon FrameworkINTRODUCTION

The state framework will guide local development or alignment of districts’ evaluation systems: Ensuring local systems are rigorous and designed to support

professional growth and accountability Increasing quality of instruction in the classroom and

leadership within the school and district Resulting in improved student learning and growth of each

and every student, regardless of race, socio-economics, language, or family background

ODE will provide models and tools that comply with state criteria; districts may adopt or develop local systems that meet or exceed state criteria

Local collaborative process

BACKGROUND

Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator

Evaluation and Support Systems

Oregon’s 40/40/20 Goal Requires an effective educator workforce

Builds on Oregon statute and rulesoSB 290, SB 252, HB 3474oOAR 581-022-1723; 1724;1725

Oregon FrameworkBACKGROUND

Oregon FrameworkBACKGROUND

Meets federal requirements ESEA Waiver Criteria for Teacher and Principal

Evaluation Systems: Used for continual improvement of instruction Differentiated performance levels Multiple measures, including student growth as

a significant factor Evaluate on a regular basis Provide clear, timely, useful feedback; identifies

needs and guides professional development Used to inform personnel decisions

GOAL, OUTCOMES AND PURPOSES OF EVALUATION

Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator

Evaluation and Support Systems

Oregon FrameworkGOAL, OUTCOMES AND PURPOSES

Goal of evaluation and support systems: To ensure all students are ready for college, careers, and engaged citizenship

Outcomes: Improved student learning at all schools for all students Effective teachers in every classroom Effective leaders in every school and district Reducing achievement gaps while increasing

achievement for every student Continuous professional growth for teachers and leaders

throughout their careers

Oregon FrameworkGOALS, OUTCOMES AND PURPOSES

Purposes of evaluation and support systems: Strengthen knowledge, dispositions, performance and

practices of teachers and administrator to improve student learning (i.e. standards-based evaluation)

Strengthen support and professional growth opportunities for teachers and administrators based on their individual needs in relation to the needs of students, school and district

Assist school districts in determining effectiveness of teachers and administrators in making human resources decisions

REQUIRED ELEMENTS

Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator

Evaluation and Support Systems

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)Standards

of Professional Practice

Differentiated

Performance Levels

(4 levels)

Multiple Measures

Evaluation and

Professional Growth

Cycle

Aligned Professional Learning

All district teacher and administrator evaluation and support systems in Oregon must include the following five elements:

Oregon Framework REQUIRED ELEMENTS

(1) Standards of Professional Practice

Adopted Model Core Teaching Standards and Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards

Foundation for Oregon’s evaluation and support systems

Defines “effective teaching” and “effective leading”

Standards of Professional Practice cont.

Model Core Teaching Standards Interstate Teacher Assessment & Support

Consortium (InTASC) Four Domains:

A. The Learner and LearningB. ContentC. Instructional PracticeD. Professional Responsibility

Standards of Professional Practice cont.

Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium

(ISLLC) Six Domains:

1. Visionary Leadership2. Instructional Improvement3. Effective Management4. Inclusive Practice5. Ethical Leadership6. Socio-Political Context

(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 standardsRubrics (scoring tools) describe performance at each

level for each standardGuides individuals toward improving their practice at

the next performance levelODE will provide approved research-based rubrics

(3) Multiple Measures

Oregon teacher and administrator 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

Administrators: Evidence of school leadership practices, teacher effectiveness, and organizational conditions

(B) Professional Responsibilities Teachers: Evidence of teachers’ progress toward their

own professional goals and contribution to schoolwide goals, including collegial learning

Administrators: Evidence of administrators’ progress toward their own professional goals and contribution to schoolwide and district goals

Multiple Measures cont.

(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 and administrators, in collaboration

with their supervisors/evaluators, will establish student growth goals and select evidence from a variety of valid measures and regularly assess progress

Multiple Measures cont.

Category Types of Measures Examples 1 Classroom-based

measuresStudent performances, portfolios, products, projects, work samples, curriculum-based measures aligned to standards

2 School, district, regional, association developed measures

Common assessments aligned to standards(collaborative process)

3 State* and national measures

*State measures generally use schoolwide data; not individual teacher-student data

Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS), SMARTER, Extended Assessments, English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA), ACT, PLAN, EXPLORE, Interim assessments, Response to Intervention (RTI) progress monitoring tools, (e.g. AIMSweb, DIBELS, easyCBM, mClass Math, MBSP, etc.), national tests, certification tests aligned to standards

Measures of student learning and growth include three types of measures:

Multiple Measures cont.

Student growth data for administrator evaluations may also include, for example: Graduation rate, attendance, drop-out rate, discipline,

% students in Advanced Placement, % successful in 9th grade math and English, % students meeting graduation requirements, % students going onto postsecondary education

District choice of data based on school and district improvement plans

Multiple Measures cont.

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 ELL

(4)Evaluation and Professional Growth Cycle

Critical steps in the

cycle

Collaborative process,

ongoing feedback,

focus on improving

effectiveness

Evaluation and Professional Growth Cycle cont.

Frequency of Evaluations Probationary teachers – every year Contract teachers – at least every two years Probationary administrators – every year Administrators – at least every two years

Personnel Decisions Described in local board policy

(5) Aligned Professional Learning

Goal is to improve professional practiceEvaluations inform educators of strengths

and weaknessesMake informed decisions for professional

growthProfessional learning relevant to educator’s

goals and needs

Oregon Framework IMPLEMENTATION

Training for educators and evaluators Clear expectations Inter-rater reliability

State will provide models and related toolsDevelop an online resource bank for districts Share lessons learned

Oregon Framework TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

SY Activities

2011-12 Adopt state framework; disseminate statewide

2012-13 Pilot in selected districts (SB252, SIG, Priority &Focus schools); network and share lessons learned statewide.

Statewide professional development and regional support to develop district implementation plans

By July 1, 2013

Districts submit local board approved plan and timeline to develop/align evaluation systems

2013-14 All districts begin implementing; support through Regional Continuous Improvement Network

2014-15 All districts fully implementing; support through Regional Continuous Improvement Network

By July 1, 2015

Districts present their educator evaluation and support systems to a Regional Peer Review Panel

2015-16 Make adjustments in state criteria and local systems to improve

Revisions to OAR 581-022-1723

Revisions to teacher and administrator evaluations include: Provides examples of multiple measures Requires evaluations use four performance levels of

effectiveness Explicitly states that student learning must be a

significant consideration in the evaluation Requires that evaluation of teachers and

administrators occur on a regular cycle District superintendents must regularly report to local

boards on their local evaluation systems and educator effectiveness

First Reading May 17, 2012