Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems

1. Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems DRAFT 4.0 Presented to the Oregon state board of education May 17, 2012

2. Educator Effectiveness INDUCTION MENTORING From CCSSO State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness

3. Educator Effectiveness • Collaborative Efforts = Greater Coherence • Coalition for Quality Teaching & Learning • In 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)

4. Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems introduction

5. Oregon FrameworkINTRODUCTION • 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

6. 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

7. Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems background

8. Oregon FrameworkBACKGROUND • Oregon’s 40/40/20 Goal • Requires an effective educator workforce • Builds on Oregon statute and rules • SB 290, SB 252, HB 3474 • OAR 581-022-1723; 1724;1725

9. 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

10. Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems Goal, OUTCOMES and Purposes of evaluation

11. 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

12. 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

13. Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems Required elements

14. Oregon Framework REQUIRED ELEMENTS All district teacher and administrator evaluation and support systems in Oregon must include the following five elements:

15. (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”

16. Standards of Professional Practice cont. • Model Core Teaching Standards • Interstate Teacher Assessment & Support Consortium (InTASC) • Four Domains: • The Learner and Learning • Content • Instructional Practice • Professional Responsibility

17. Standards of Professional Practice cont. • Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards • Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) • Six Domains: • Visionary Leadership • Instructional Improvement • Effective Management • Inclusive Practice • Ethical Leadership • Socio-Political Context

18. (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 (scoring tools) describe performance at each level for each standard • Guides individuals toward improving their practice at the next performance level • ODE will provide approved research-based rubrics

19. (3) Multiple Measures Oregon teacher and administrator evaluations must include measures from three categories of evidence: Aligned to the standards of professional practice

20. (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

21. 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

22. Multiple Measures cont. Measures of student learning and growth include three types of measures:

23. 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

24. 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

25. (4)Evaluation and Professional Growth Cycle Critical steps in the cycle Collaborative process, ongoing feedback, focus on improving effectiveness

26. 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

27. (5) Aligned Professional Learning • Goal is to improve professional practice • Evaluations inform educators of strengths and weaknesses • Make informed decisions for professional growth • Professional learning relevant to educator’s goals and needs

28. Oregon Framework IMPLEMENTATION • Training for educators and evaluators • Clear expectations • Inter-rater reliability • State will provide models and related tools • Develop an online resource bank for districts • Share lessons learned

29. Oregon Framework TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

30. Revisions to OAR 581-022-1723 First Reading May 17, 2012 • 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