TEACHER EVALUATION After S.B. 290

1. TEACHER EVALUATION After S.B. 290 The Hungerford Law Firm August, 2012

2. S.B. 290 -- 2011 • Oregon legislature calls for state-adopted performance standards, with local “customization.” • Goal: “To improve student academic growth and learning by: • “assisting school districts in determining the effectiveness of teachers and administrations for “human resource decisions” • “Improving professional development and classroom and administrative practices”

3. 1979: O.R.S. 342.850 • 1979 Legislature called for local school boards to adopt criteria for performance of teachers and licensed administrators: • Annual evaluations for probationary and permanent educators (later every two years for permanent) • Goal setting, “Multiple observations” required • Where deficiencies are identified, implementation of “program of improvement if one is needed to remedy” the problem • Standards and procedures developed “in consultation with” teachers appointed by local teacher associations

4. S.B. 290 Steps to Implementation • The Act took effect 7/1/11 • State Board adoption of Core Teaching Standards 12/11 • Oregon proposal for ESEA Flexibility Waiver • State Board adopts “Framework” to provide further guidance to school districts (6/12) • Districts “customize” standards through “collaborative” process • “Pilot” implementation by13-14

5. Local “Collaborative Process” *Starting point is state standards Open *Collaboration by administrators, teachers, teacher associations * OEA definition: “consensus- driven decision-making” * Leg. counsel: “interactive process” * State standards may be “customized” for local district

6. “Musts” for Standards *Must “take into consideration multiple measures of teacher effectiveness *Must “take into consideration evidence of student academic growth and learning based on multiple measures of student progress, including performance data of students, schools, and school districts.” *Must be “research-based” *Must be “customized” for each district, which may include “individualized weighting and application of standards”

7. Standards related to student growth? • “The teacher collects and analyzes data concerning student growth and performance and develops unit and daily lesson plans that target skills/knowledge where students are identified as lacking or below grade level.” • “The teacher uses instructional practices and maximizes instructional time focused on student needs, with instruction differentiated based upon the data analyzed.” • “The teacher’s instruction results in demonstrable student growth in the skills and knowledge targeted in daily/unit lesson plans, as evidenced in multiple measures of student performance.”

8. O.R.S. 342.850 (continuing): No State standards Local standards developed “in consultation” with teachers named by union Goal-setting, multiple observations required “Plans of assistance for improvement” required to remedy identified deficiencies No “consideration of” student academic growth required S.B. 290: State standards, but “customized” by district Based on “collaborative efforts” of teachers, administrators, unions No specified evaluation processes, but ODE-adopted “Framework” requirements No mention of action if deficiencies found “Consideration of student academic growth required Summary: S.B. 290 Changes

9. Collective Bargaining and Teacher Evaluation: Pre-S.B. 290 • “Standards of performance or criteria for evaluation” are permissive subjects of bargaining under PECBA. • Some districts have CBA language prohibiting use of student test scores/other data in teacher evaluation • “Minimum fairness” evaluation procedures are mandatory for bargaining. • All other evaluation procedures are permissive. • Mandatory proposal: Teacher evaluation to be conducted “in accordance with” O.R.S. 342.850.

10. Potential Disputes with Unions • Participation in establishing standards by parents, students, non-union teachers? • “Collaboration” versus “mutual agreement” • “Ratification” by “each party” required? • Placing standards and/or evaluation process in CBA (thus becoming grievable) • Demands to bargain over standards, process • Status of current CBA evaluation language?

11. Problematic CBA language • “Evaluations shall not be based solely on student test scores or other measurements of student performance.” • “All evaluations shall comply with ORS 342.850 and S.B. 290, the ODE “Framework, and the District’s adopted Evaluation Handbook.” • “Any evaluation based on student academic growth shall be based on multiple measures of student performance that are customized for the individual teacher.” • “The District will collaboratively develop standards and processes in compliance with S.B. 290.” All such language in the CBA creates a possibility for grievances. All proposals are wholly or partially permissive.

12. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN To comply with the requirements of S.B. 290: • Determine if your current evaluation procedures meet all requirements of S.B. 290 and the “Framework”: •Four-level rating scale? •Annual goal-setting process (SMART goals) that includes at least two goals related to student learning? •Teacher and evaluator select evidence of goal completion? •Mid-year and end-of-year meeting over progress on student growth goals? •Summative evaluation every year (probationary) and at least every two years (contract teachers).

13. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN • Compare your current standards of performance to ODE’s “Core Teaching Standards.” OAR 581-022-1724 •The Learner & Learning • Content • Instructional Practice • Professional Responsibility Option: Retain current standards but align to State standards (i.e., “walk across” from Danielson standards)

14. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN • Establish a process & timeline for “collaboration” efforts • Determine size and membership of review group. • Provide time for “collaboration” with administrators, teachers, and association. • Determine involvement of other stakeholders • Set timelines for work product of collaboration group. • Allow time for school board study, adoption • Allow time for administrator training • “Pilot” implementation during 2013-14

15. S.B. 290 Action Plan Provide for “multiple evidence-based measures to evaluate teacher performance and effectiveness, including: *Evidence of professional practice *Evidence of Professional Responsibilities *Evidence of Student Learning and Growth Evidence from all three categories must be used to “holistically” rate performance.

16. S.B. 290 Action Plan Evaluating “Professional Practice”: *Classroom observation, documentation and feedback (both formal and informal) *Examination of Artifacts (lesson plans, curriculum design, scope and sequence, assignments, student work)

17. S.B. 290 Action Plan Evaluating Professional Responsibilities: *Teacher reflections and self-reports *Professional goal-setting *Parent/student surveys *Peer collaboration (in formative process only) *Portfolios *Building-level leadership

18. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN Develop the means for consideration of evidence of “student academic growth and learning” “Student growth” = “change in student achievement between two or more points in time” currently no specified weighting* • Classroom- or school-based measures • District-developed (collaboratively?) measures • State and national measures * Piloting districts will use various weighting percentages

19. S.B. 290 Action Plan Student Growth Goal Setting Process • Teachers review baseline data and create goals measuring learning of all students over year • Teachers collaborate with evaluator (and with colleagues) to establish student learning goals • Teachers establish at least 2 student growth goals & identify evidence to determine goal attainment.

20. S.B. 290 Action Plan EVALUATOR’S ROLE IN GOAL SETTING? • Collaborate in setting student growth goals • Discuss rigor and rationale of each goal • SMART goal process to be used • Meet with teacher mid- and end-of-year to discuss progress, change in strategies • Make a quantitative rating of goal attainment (Level 1-4), not just based on student growth

21. Student-Centered Goal-Setting POSSIBILITIES • Building-wide goals, based on the District’s Achievement Compact • Department or grade-level goals based on analysis of test data • Building goals to increase retention, attendance orgraduation rates • Individual goals based upon the teacher’s analysis and definition of students demonstrating adequate “growth andlearning.” • Administrator-directed goals in areas of deficiency EXAMPLE “Using beginning of year assessment, I will identify the 25% of my kindergarten students with the lowest reading/pre-reading skills and provide targeted instruction so they exit kindergarten with skills no lower than pre-primer level.”

22. Sample Student-Centered Goals Target based on Achievement Compact Target: Low percentage of 9th-graders “on track” GOAL (for all 9th-grade teachers): Increase from 50% to 60% students who have 6 or more credits at the end of 9th grade. Target based on common national measure: Target: Student growth in physical conditioning/ basic skills (elementary PE teacher). GOAL: Increase from 20 to 33% number of students in grades 1-6 scoring 80 or higher on Presidential Fitness Test.

23. “Classroom-based” student learning goals “85% of beginning band students will elect to continue into the second-year class.” “95% of beginning band students will, by May, be able to play the complete scale in tune.” “95% of beginning band students will, by May, be able to play two or more songs from the Level I book, in tune and with regular rhythm.”

24. Designing Data Collection The teacher’s goal must be MEASURABLE so reliable EVIDENCE must be obtained through targeted DATA COLLECTION. • Let teacher suggest what evidence would be needed, how it might be collected • Ask teacher to design data collection devices, summaries • Set early deadline for submission of preliminary data • Use PLC to design/review data collection • Plan for data that can be gathered in observations by administrator.

25. DATA COLLECTION by Observation • Determine focus of observation, tied to goals/deficiencies • Determine what method of data collection will fit: • Share data with teacher • Set expectations for next observation * On-task data * Interaction analysis (focused) * Selective verbatim * Anecdotal (focused)

26. DATA COLLECTION by Observation • Determine focus of observation, tied to goals/deficiencies • Determine what method of data collection will fit: • Share data with teacher • Set expectations for next observation * On-task data * Interaction analysis (focused) * Selective verbatim * Anecdotal (focused)

27. Post-Observation CONFERENCING Goal: Increase students’ use of higher-order thinking skills in 7th-grade social studies curriculum. • Make available and summarize the “raw data” Example: During 10-minute direct instruction segment in 7th-grade social studies class, 75% of teacher questions called for student to respond with simple facts. Teacher called upon 12 of 25 students. All questions requiring higher levels of thinking (analysis, synthesis) were answered by 2 students. • Ask for teacher reflection/comment • Ask for teacher to suggest alternative strategies • Suggest (or direct) alternate strategies

28. Post-observation REPORT • Record basic facts (# of students, date/year, time, class, # of minutes) • Identify the focus of the observation and related goal • Write an objective summary of data collected • Write a summary statement of level of performance • Identify 2-3 suggestions/directions for change • Identify plans for other data collection, additional observations • Identify teacher self-help, assistance available

29. When teacher is not improving . . . • Contact Human Resources Department • Review/summarize history, recent trends • Consider writing (or rewriting) “Directed Goal” • Increase data collection (maybe observation time) • Consider, offer other sources of assistance When is a Plan of Assistance necessary? Desirable?

30. Role of the Association in Evaluation Process *No “Weingarten” rights by law *Examine your collective bargaining agreement and evaluation handbook. (“The teacher may bring a representative of the Association to any meeting where a plan of assistance is being discussed.”) *Insist on talking to the teacher, not the representative

31. Inadequate Student Growth – basis for nonrenewal or dismissal? Options • Non-renewal of probationary staff • Dismissal of probationary staff • Non-extension of contract teachers • Dismissal of contract teachers

32. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN • Involve and inform the school board and public. • Present to Board an Action Plan to meet S.B. 290 • Introduce “collaboration” group • Address Board member opinions with research, information • Allow time for presentation of recommendation • Schedule Board vote in spring 2013

33. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN • Work to change the “culture” of evaluation • Individual teacher, building “piloting”? • PLC discussions of reliable “evidence” of student growth • Use of data to focus evaluation efforts • Identify teacher “inputs” that influence student “outputs”

34. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN • Supervise, train, educate the evaluators: • Use collaborative process to review, revise administrative standards, evaluation process • Provide training in observation methods to establish consistency • Observe principals in action • Establish accountability systems to require identification, remediation efforts

35. What’s Next? • Possible additional changes in OARs, Framework to retain NCLB waiver • Possible additional legislative change in 2013 • Likely litigation over bargaining issues • More opportunities for training, assistance For updates, call The Hungerford Law Firm at 503-650-7990 or e-mail Nancy@Hungerfordlaw.com