Oregon Framework

Oregon’s Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support SystemsPresented by:ODE, OEA and Chalkboard Oregon Framework

Overview • Principles and Vision of a Quality System • Collaboration • Purpose of System • SB 290, ESEA Waiver & Process • Oregon’s Framework Required Elements Oregon Framework

Vision and Principles Center for Great Public Schools • Vision and Principles of a Quality System • Vision: This is a transformative professional growth system -Values have shifted from just making contract renewal decisions to elevating leading, teaching and learning. -To nurture a culture of continuous improvement and growth by including formative assessment & support. -To create alignment between evaluation and professional learning that adds value to the system • Principles: -Designed collaboratively -Research-based, best practice Oregon Framework

Collaboration Center for Great Public Schools • Collaboration in Design of a System • Collaboration is a multi-stakeholder investment that leads to a shift in culture: • Equal voice is paramount, • Accountability to the goals and mission of the collaborative team. • School district collaborative evaluation team is charged with the design and implementation of a professional growth plan that includes: • Best practice exemplars that meet the Oregon Framework requirements. • A multi-year implementation process driven by professional development with a thorough assessment and continuous improvement of the evaluation system. • A primary focus on professional growth, providing a safe environment for practitioners to take risks, reflect, learn and grow. Oregon Framework

Purpose of System Center for Great Public Schools • Purpose of a Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support System • Primary purpose is to support the learning and growth of all practitioners -Regardless of where a teacher or administrator is on the rubric -Requires an environment where safety is paramount so learners (teachers and admin) can take risks to push their development • A focus on growth requires time and resources -Opportunities to collaborate with colleagues and peers -Opportunities to reflect on practice, try new strategies, evaluate their effectiveness, then collaborate to configure next steps Oregon Framework

SB 290 & ESEA Waiver Center for Great Public Schools • Teacher and Administrator Evaluation • Senate Bill 290 (2011) -Evaluation systems collaboratively designed with teachers, administrators, and exclusive bargaining representative -Aligned to model core teaching standards and Oregon leadership/admin standards - Multiple-measures • ESEA-No Child Left Behind Waiver (2012) - -Consensus evaluation Oregon Framework - Student growth as a “significant factor” -2012-2013 pilot year Oregon Framework

Oregon’s Waiver & Evaluation Center for Great Public Schools • ESEA Waiver • Every evaluation in Oregon must include multiple, valid measures tied to established standards of practice • 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 and admin 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 Framework

Pilot School Districts • Part of this step will be decided by the ODE/OEA pilots • SB 252 • Ashland Lebanon Lincoln County • McMinnville Oregon City Pendleton • Redmond Sherwood Sisters • South Lane Springfield Vernonia • OEA • Beaverton SD • North Clackamas SD Oregon Framework

Framework Required Elements • Teacher and Administrator Evaluation All district teacher and administrator evaluation and support systems in Oregon must include the following six elements: Oregon Framework

(1) Standards of Practice • Model Core Teaching Standards • Interstate Teacher Assessment & Support Consortium (InTASC) • Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards • Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) • Compliance examples: • Handbook recognizes InTASC/ISLLC as standards • Crosswalk from your standards to the InTASC/ISLLC standards • OSBA Policy showing adoption of InTASC, ISLLC Oregon Framework

(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 • Guides individuals toward improving their practice at the next performance level Oregon Framework

(2) Differentiated Performance Levels • Compliance examples: • Adopt an ODE recommended rubrics • TeachersAdministrators • Danielson Salem-Keizer’s Admin Assessment & Eval • Marshall Oregon Educational Leadership/Admin • Marzano Pendleton • Salem-Keizer’s LEGENDS • Develop or keep your own rubric • Perform Gap Analysis for ODE Oregon Framework

(3) Multiple Measures Oregon teacher & admin evaluations must include at least TWO measures from each of the three categories of evidence: ESEA Waiver Update Oregon Framework

(3) Multiple Measures Oregon Framework • (A) Professional Practice • Compliance examples – at minimum, you must have: • Observation • Artifact analysis • (B) Professional Responsibilities • Compliance examples – could include: • Professional goals/plan • Self-assessment/evaluation • Participation/reflection in PLC or PLC goals contribution

(3) Multiple Measures • (C) Student Learning and Growth • Compliance examples – at minimum, you must have: • Two Student Learning and Growth Goals • Based on multiple measures of student learning • Teachers: • If you are ELA/Math, Grades 3-8 & 11 • 1 of your 2 goals must use OAKS data • Your other goal must have measures from category2 or 3 • If you are not ELA/Math Grades 3-8 & 11 • Your goals must include student learning measures from two of the three categories • Admin: • One goal must use OAKS data • Building-level data in reading and math, including all subgroups • Should align to Achievement Compact goals where applicable Oregon Framework

(3) Student Learning Measures Measures of student learning and growth include three types of measures: Oregon Framework

(4) Evaluation & Professional Growth Oregon Framework • Compliance examples: • Frequency of Evaluations • Probationary teachers & non-contract administrators – every years • Contract teachers & administrators – at least every two years

(4) Evaluation & Professional Growth Critical components in the cycle Collaborative process, ongoing feedback, focus on improving effectiveness Oregon Framework

(5) Aligned to Professional Learning Oregon Framework • Goal is to improve professional practice • Evaluations inform educators of strengths & weaknesses • Make informed decisions for professional growth • Professional learning relevant to educator’s goals & needs • Help all levels grow/learn • Goal is to meet standards • Don’t live in 4 – “visit” 2 & 4 as learners and growers • Learning Forward standards: • www.learningforward.org/standards/standards.cfm

(6) Plan for Implementation & Training Oregon Framework • Must provide a plan for how the new system will be implemented, including training: • Staff being evaluated on the new system • Evaluators utilizing the new system to evaluate staff • Inter-rater reliability • Calibration • It is vital that this plan is collaboratively developed

Oregon’s Framework Implementation Oregon Framework • ODE will: • Provide models and related tools • Develop an online resource bank for districts • Assurances template – due July 1, 2013 • http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3478 • OEA Guidebook, website, & resources • www.oregoned.org/evalresources • Training for educators and evaluators

Timeline for Implementation SUMMER 2012 UPDATE

Oregon Framework