1. Oregon’s Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems Presented by: ODE, OEA and Chalkboard Oregon Framework Oregon Framework

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

3. Center for Great Public Schools Vision and Principles  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

4. Center for Great Public Schools Collaboration  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

5. Center for Great Public Schools Purpose of System  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

6. Center for Great Public Schools SB 290 & ESEA Waiver  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

7. 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’s Waiver & Evaluation Oregon Framework

8. Pilot School Districts Oregon Framework  Part of this step will be decided by the ODE/OEA pilots SB 252 AshlandLebanonLincoln County McMinnvilleOregon CityPendleton RedmondSherwoodSisters South LaneSpringfieldVernonia OEA Beaverton SD North Clackamas SD

9. Framework Required Elements  Teacher and Administrator Evaluation All district teacher and administrator evaluation and support systems in Oregon must include the following six elements: (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) Standards of Professional Practice Differentiated Performance Levels (4 levels) Multiple Measures Evaluation and Professional Growth Cycle Aligned Professional Learning Plan for Training Oregon Framework

10. (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

11. (2) Differentiated Performance Levels Oregon Framework  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

12. (2) Differentiated Performance Levels Oregon Framework Compliance examples: Adopt an ODE recommended rubrics TeachersAdministrators DanielsonSalem-Keizer’s Admin Assessment & Eval MarshallOregon Educational Leadership/Admin MarzanoPendleton Salem-Keizer’s LEGENDS Develop or keep your own rubric  Perform Gap Analysis for ODE

13. (3) Multiple Measures (A)Professional Practice (B)Professional Responsibilities (C) Student Learning and Growth Oregon teacher & admin evaluations must include at least TWO measures from each of the three categories of evidence: ESEA Waiver Update Oregon Framework

14. (3) Multiple Measures  (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 Oregon Framework

15. (3) Multiple Measures Oregon Framework  (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 o 1 of your 2 goals must use OAKS data o 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 o Building-level data in reading and math, including all subgroups  Should align to Achievement Compact goals where applicable

16. (3) Student Learning Measures CategoryTypes of Measures of Student Learning (aligned to standards) Examples include, but are not limited to: 1 State or national standardized tests (Teachers & Admin) Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS), SMARTER Balanced (when adopted), English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA), Extended Assessments 2 Common national, international, regional, district-developed measures (Teachers & Admin) ACT, PLAN, EXPLORE, AP, IB, DIBELS, C-PAS, other national measures; or common assessments approved by the district or state as valid, reliable and able to be scored comparably across schools or classrooms 3 Classroom-based or school-wide measures (Teachers) Student performances, portfolios, products, projects, work samples, tests 3 Other school-wide or district-wide measures (Admin) Graduation rate, attendance rate, drop-out rate, discipline data, college ready indicators (PSAT, AP/IB) Measures of student learning and growth include three types of measures: Oregon Framework

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

18. (4) Evaluation & Professional Growth Self-ReflectionGoal Setting Observation & Collection of Evidence Formative Assessment Summative Evaluation Critical components in the cycle Collaborative process, ongoing feedback, focus on improving effectiveness Oregon Framework

19. (5) Aligned to Professional Learning  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 Oregon Framework

20. (6) Plan for Implementation & Training  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 Framework

21. Oregon’s Framework Implementation  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 Oregon Framework

22. Timeline for Implementation SUMMER 2012 UPDATE SYActivities 2011-12Adopt state framework; disseminate statewide 2012-13Pilot in selected districts (SB 252 & 2 OEA); 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, including a plan for training all staff and evaluators. 2013-14All districts begin implementing; must incorporate student learning goals process, but do not have to incorporate into Summative Evaluation; can choose to experiment with matrix or weighted model; support through Regional Continuous Improvement Network 2014-15All 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 2015-16Make adjustments in state criteria and local systems to improve