1. August 2014 The Oregon Matrix Model was submitted to USED on May 1, 2014 and is pending approval* as of 8/8/14 *Please note content may change Oregon’s Matrix Model for Summative Evaluations

2. OREGON FRAMEWORK 5 Required Elements: 1.Standards of Professional Practice 2.4-Level Rubric 3.Multiple Measures: Professional Practice Professional Responsibilities Student Learning & Growth 4.Professional Growth Cycle 5.Aligned Professional Learning Professional Learning and Growth Oregon Matrix is the summative component of the district’s evaluation cycle

3. Teachers Administrators Model Core Teaching Standards (INTASC) o Four Domains/10 Standards: 1. The Learner and Learning 2. Content 3. Instructional Practice 4. Professional Responsibility Educational Leadership/ Administrator Standards (ISLLC)  Six Domains: 1. Visionary Leadership 2. Instructional Improvement 3. Effective Management 4. Inclusive Practice 5. Ethical Leadership 6. Socio-Political Context Standards of Professional Practice  Impact on Student Learning and Growth

4. Summative Rating Based on Multiple Measures

5. Matrix Combines Multiple Measures: PP/PR & SLG Y-Axis: PP / PR 4 3 2 1 1234 X-Axis: SLG Professional Practice – PP Professional Responsibilities - PR Student Learning and Growth - SLG

6. Summative Evaluation Professional Growth Plan & Performance Level *Inquiry Process

7. The Y-Axis: Rating on Professional Practice & Professional Responsibilities (PP/PR) The Danielson Framework for Teaching I. Planning and PreparationII. Classroom EnvironmentIII. InstructionIV. Professional Responsibilities 1a. Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy 1b. Demonstrating Knowledge of Students 1c. Setting Instructional Outcomes 1d.Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources 1e.Designing Coherent Instruction 1f.Designing Student Assessments 2a. Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport 2b. Establish a Culture for Learning 2c. Managing Classroom Procedures 2d. Managing Student Behavior 2e. Organizing Physical Space 3a. Communicating with Students 3b. Questioning and Discussion Techniques 3c. Engaging Students in Learning 3d. Using Assessment in Instruction 3e. Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness 4a. Reflecting on Teaching 4b. Maintaining Accurate Records 4c. Communicating with Families 4d. Participating in a Professional Community 4e. Growing and Developing Professionally 4f. Showing Professionalism Using Danielson’s framework as an example, the Y-axis combines the ratings from all the components in the rubric under the four domains: Planning Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities (22 components)

8. Calculating PP/PR Performance Level (Y-Axis) Add up all component scores for total points possible; Divide by number of components (based on rubric); Get a rating between 1 and 4; Use the following thresholds to determine PP/PR level:  3.6 - 4.0 = 4  2.81-3.59 =3  1.99 – 2.8 = 2 *  < 1.99 = 1 *PP/PR Scoring Rule: If the educator scores two 1’s in any PP/PR component and his/her average score falls between 1.99-2.499, the educator’s performance level cannot be rated above a 1.

9. PP/PR Examples of from 3 Different Rubrics DanielsonMarshallLEGENDS 22 components Max 4 on each component; 22 x 4 = max score of 88 Your score / 22 = average PP/PR rating 60 components Max 4 on each component; 60 x 4 = max score of 240 Your score / 60 = average PP/PR rating 32 components Max 4 on each component; 32 x 4 = max score of 128 Your score / 32 = average PP/PR rating

10. The X-Axis is the combined rating of the educator’s two annual SLG goals Educators on a two-year cycle will select two of the four goals to use in the summative evaluation  Teachers in tested grades and subjects (Math & ELA/grades 3-8 & 11) and principals must include a state assessment goal in the SLG rating Districts must use the SLG Quality Review Checklist for approving goals and the SLG Scoring Rubric for scoring goals The X-Axis: Rating on SLG Goals

12. Calculating SLG Performance Level: X-Axis Level 4Level 3Level 2Level 1 You must score:  4 on both goals You could score:  3 on both goals, or  3 on one goal & 4 on one goal, or  4 on one goal & 2 on one goal You could score:  2 on both goals, or  2 on one goal & 3 on one goal, or  3 on one goal & 1 on one goal, or  4 on one goal & 1 on one goal You could score:  1 on both goals, or  1 on one goal & 2 on one goal The SLG performance level is based on two SLG goals; educators on a two-year cycle will select two of their four goals Score SLG goals using the SLG Scoring Rubric; Get a rating between 1 and 4; Use the thresholds below to determine SLG level:

13. Oregon Matrix Summative Performance Level

14. Corresponding Professional Growth Plan

15. Performance Levels Levels 1-4 are the four differentiated levels of performance on the district’s rubric. Districts may use their own labels. Example: PP/PR Exemplary Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Low Growth Limited Growth Moderate Growth High Growth SLG Exemplary Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory

16. Professional Growth Plans The intersection of the Y-axis (PP/PR) with the X-axis (SLG) determine the overall performance level and corresponding professional growth plan  Facilitative  Collegial  Consulting  Directed Districts may change the names but must keep the intent of the “plans” as defined in the Oregon Matrix Part of the evaluation cycle and aligned professional learning Who takes the lead in developing professional growth goals?

17. Professional Growth Facilitative - 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).

18. Professional Growth Collegial - 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).

19. Professional Growth Consulting - 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).

20. Professional Growth Directed - 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.

21. Inquiry Process for SLG To determine the educator’s resulting summative performance level and professional growth plan, the following is initiated by the evaluator  Collaboratively examine student growth data and circumstances in conjunction with other evidence  The evaluator then decides the if the performance level is 2 or 3; or 3 or 4 and corresponding growth plan

22. Inquiry Process for PP/PR To determine the educator’s resulting summative performance level and professional growth plan, the following is initiated by the evaluator  Collaboratively reexamine evidence and artifacts; may provide additional evidence or conduct additional observations o The evaluator then decides the if the performance level is 2 or 3; or 3 or 4 and corresponding growth plan