DRAFT 4.0 PRESENTED TO THE OREGON STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY 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 Coherence Coalition for Quality Teaching & Learning In December 2011, the State Board adopted  Model Core Teaching Standards (OAR )  Educational Leadership Standards (OAR )  Teacher/Administrator Evaluations (OAR )

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 Framework INTRODUCTION

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 rules o SB 290, SB 252, HB 3474 o OAR ; 1724;1725 Oregon Framework BACKGROUND

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 Framework GOAL, 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 Framework GOALS, 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 Learning B. Content C. Instructional Practice D. Professional Responsibility

Standards of Professional Practice cont. Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards  Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)  Six Domains: 1. Visionary Leadership 2. Instructional Improvement 3. Effective Management 4. Inclusive Practice 5. Ethical Leadership 6. 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 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

(3) Multiple Measures (A)Professional Practice (B)Professional Responsibilities (C) Student Learning and Growth 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. CategoryTypes of MeasuresExamples 1Classroom-based measures Student performances, portfolios, products, projects, work samples, curriculum-based measures aligned to standards 2School, district, regional, association developed measures Common assessments aligned to standards (collaborative process) 3State* 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 9 th 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 Self-ReflectionGoal Setting Observation & Collection of Evidence Formative Assessment Summative Evaluation 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 practice Evaluations inform educators of strengths and weaknesses Make informed decisions for professional growth Professional 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 tools Develop an online resource bank for districts Share lessons learned

Oregon Framework TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION SYActivities Adopt state framework; disseminate statewide 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 All districts begin implementing; support through Regional Continuous Improvement Network 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 Make adjustments in state criteria and local systems to improve

Revisions to OAR 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