1 / 17

ODE Update

ODE Update . JUNE 2014. Oregon Matrix Model. For teacher and administrator summative evaluations. Timeline. February 2014 - ODE convened partner meetings (ODE, OEIB,OEA, COSA, Chalkboard representatives) and educators from pilot districts to review AIR data and make recommendations

wilona
Download Presentation

ODE Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ODE Update JUNE 2014

  2. Oregon Matrix Model For teacher and administrator summative evaluations

  3. Timeline February 2014 - ODE convened partner meetings (ODE, OEIB,OEA, COSA, Chalkboard representatives) and educators from pilot districts to review AIR data and make recommendations February to April 2014 – ODE and partners work collaboratively on models May 1 – ODE will submit final state guidelines with summative model to USED for approval Summer 2014 – ODE and partners will provide professional development

  4. American Institute of Research Researched our models Compared the benefits of each Measured comparability between the two (Percentage and Matrix) Provided data analysis

  5. Matrix Model and Multiple Measures • Professional Practice • Professional Responsibilities • Student Learning and Growth

  6. The Y-Axis: Rating on Professional Practice & Professional Responsibilities (PP/PR) Danielson has 22 components Can receive a maximum of a 4 on each 22 x 4 = maximum score of 88 Your score / 22 = your average Set rounding benchmarks (still in process) PROVIDES Y AXIS SCORE

  7. The Y-Axis: Rating on Professional Practice & Professional Responsibilities (PP/PR) Marshall has 60 components Can receive a maximum of a 4 on each 60 x 4 = maximum score of 240 Your score / 60 = your average Set rounding benchmarks (still in process) PROVIDES Y AXIS SCORE

  8. The Y-Axis: Rating on Professional Practice & Professional Responsibilities (PP/PR) LEGENDS has 32 components Can receive a maximum of a 4 on each 32 x 4 = maximum score of 128 Your score / 32 = your average Set rounding benchmarks (still in process) PROVIDES Y AXIS SCORE

  9. The X-Axis: Rating on 2 SLG Goals

  10. Professional Growth Plans: Facilitative Growth Plans - The educator leads the conversation and chooses the focus of the Professional Growth Plan and professional goal(s) as the educator and evaluator collaborate on the plan/professional growth goal(s). If the educator had a SLG performance level 2, the plan/professional goal(s) should also include a focus on increasing the educator’s overall aptitude in this measure.

  11. Professional Growth Plans: Collegial Growth Plans - The educator and evaluator collaboratively develop the educator's Professional Growth Plan/professional goal(s). The educator and evaluator have an equal voice in developing the plan /professional goal(s). If the educator had a SLG performance level 1 or 2, the plan/professional goal(s) should also include a focus on increasing the educator’s overall aptitude in this measure.

  12. Professional Growth Plans: Consulting Growth Plans - The evaluator consults with the educator and uses the information gathered to inform the educator's Professional Growth Plan /professional goal(s). This plan is more evaluator directed but does take into consideration the voice of the educator in developing the plan/professional goal(s). If the educator had a SLG performance level 1 or 2, the plan/professional goal(s) should also include a focus on increasing the educator’s overall aptitude in this measure.

  13. Professional Growth Plans: Directed Growth Plans - The evaluator directs the educator's Professional Growth Plan /professional goal(s). This plan should involve a focus on the most important area(s) to improve educator performance. If the educator had a SLG performance level 1 or 2, the plan/professional goal(s) should also include a focus on increasing the educator’s overall aptitude in this measure.

  14. Student Learning and Growth Inquiry Process: • In order to determine an educator’s Professional Growth Plan and resulting summative performance level, the following must be initiated by the evaluator to determine the matrix placement is valid. With the educator: (For example) • Collaboratively examine student growth data and circumstances in conjunction with other evidence • The evaluator then decides the respective Professional Growth Plan and if the summative performance level is a 2 or 3; or a 3 or 4.

  15. Professional Practice and Professional Responsibility Inquiry Process: • In order to determine an educator’s Professional Growth Plan and resulting summative performance level, the following must be initiated by the evaluator to determine if the matrix placement is valid. With the educator: (For example) • Reexamine evidence and artifacts, additional observations and/or educator may provide additional evidence • The evaluator then decides the respective Professional Growth Plan and if the summative performance level is a 2 or 3; or a 3 or 4.

  16. Student Learning and Growth Goals • Required SLG Goal Components • Content Standards/Skills • Assessments • Context/Students • Baseline Data • Student Learning and Growth Goal (Targets) • Strategies • Rationale • Professional Learning and Support • SLG Goal Quality Review Checklist & Scoring Rubric

More Related