1. Oregon City School District December 2010

2. GOAL: Implement a performance based evaluation system for all certified staff in fall 2011 Adopt standards with criteria Design performance based evaluation system Define effectiveness for teachers and principals by Feb

3. GOAL: Implement a performance based evaluation system for all certified staff in fall 2011 Adopt standards with criteria Design performance based evaluation system * Agree on components (OCSD, best practices, TIF parameters) *look at models/examples *Design handbook *Plan ‘training for supervisors/teachers Adopt as is Adopt with edits Design anew

4. GOAL: Implement a performance based evaluation system for all certified staff in fall 2011 Adopt standards with criteria Design performance based evaluation system * Agree on components (OCSD, best practices, TIF parameters) *look at models/examples *Design handbook *Plan ‘training’ for supervisors/teachers Adopt as is Adopt with edits Design anew

5. Today’s Agenda Review work completed to date related to Performance based Evaluation System Share components of effective evaluation systems and overview parameters of CLASS/TIF grant Determine descriptors for domains/components Reach consensus on definitions for levels of performance Reach initial consensus on components of performance based evaluation system Homework

6. Effectiveness Job Embedded High Quality Professional Growth New Differentiated Compensation Models Expanded Career Paths Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers and Principals Rigorous Performance Evaluation Systems Student Growth Multiple Measures Individual Student School Growth Growth Standards and Criteria Smart Goals Observations and Conferences

7. Effectiveness By Feb: definition Job Embedded High Quality Professional Growth New Differentiated Compensation Models Expanded Career Paths Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers and Principals Rigorous Performance Evaluation Systems Student Growth Multiple Measures Individual Student School Growth Growth Standards and Criteria Smart Goals Observations and Conferences

8. Review of Work Work DefinedWork in ProgressWork to be done HandbookAlign current handbook with parameters of TIF Align required forms with standards/criteria and process Probationary, Trad’l and Non Trad’l tracks Determine differentiation components, if any Determine specific components and steps in process Performance levels labeled Performance levels defined Link student growth to performance evaluation using multiple measures Domains identifiedDomains/components defined Train evaluators/teachers on ‘new’ model System components identified (self-assess, PGP etc.) Descriptors of performance levels for each component Define effectiveness for teachers and principals

9. ALL ON THE WALL Pluses 1. 2. 3. Challenges 1. 2. 3.

10. Pluses

11. Challenges/Concerns/?s ONES TWOSTHREES

12. Effective Performance Based Evaluation Systems How good is good enough? Good at what? How do we know? Who decides? Charlotte Danielson (2010)

13. Standards for Quality and Professional Growth Quality = Standards as criteria for assessing performance Professional Growth = Standards become targets for professional growth goals Free powerpoint template: www.brainybetty.com 13

14. What? How? Standards with criteria: “ use an objective, evidence based rubric aligned with teacher performance framework developed by Danielson (2007)” Clear definition of exemplary practice: “effective teacher..rated as proficient or distinguished as a result of rigorous and comprehensive performance eval.” Procedure supports novice and experienced teachers: “trajectory of professional growth in which employees are empowered to be self- directed” “self-assessment, goal setting, professional development, student learning targets (SMART)” Promoting Professionalism and Ensuring Quality

15. How? “enact a structured process for evaluation and observation including pre- conference, observation, collection of artifacts over time, post-observation conference with written documentation –teacher’s self reflection and a formative evaluation by principal with a timeline to follow-up” Promoting Professionalism and Ensuring Quality What? “performance evaluation that incorporates student growth” “portfolios of professional practice linked to performance ratings” “artifacts in portfolios”

16. What? How? “conduct informal and formal observation based assessments of teacher performance using multiple points that take into account student growth as well as other measures of effectiveness” Promoting Professionalism and Ensuring Quality

17. What? How? “to ensure quality and rigor, the consortium will use data from student assessments (formative and summative) information collected through observations, as well as artifacts from classroom as its foundation for the CLASS evaluation system” Promoting Professionalism and Ensuring Quality

18. Effective Evaluation Systems Link evaluation with professional growth/development and district mission Continuous processes for learning Focus on student learning Allocate adequate resources

19. Continued.. Reflection on Practice Collaboration and Professional Conversations Self-Assessment/Self directed Inquiry Portfolios of evidence A Community of Learners

20. Continued.. Reflection on Practice Collaboration and Professional Conversations Self-Assessment/Self directed Inquiry Portfolios of evidence A Community of Learners

21. What How = Framework of Professional Practice Standards to consider: InTASC Danielson’s Domains State of Oregon (TSPC/no criteria) Marshall California (New Teacher Center) Marzano Other states (DC, LA) Handbook/Models to consider: Klamath Falls Sherwood Tillamook Newport News, VA Bethel Sisters Marshall’s work Other states

22. Currently Proposed Domains Planning and Preparation Learning and Work Environment Instruction or Delivery of Service Professional Responsibilities Performance levels Emerging Applying Integrating Exemplary

23. What Standards? InTASC Domains 4 –Standards 10 –3 areas in each standard: Performances Essential Knowledge Critical Dispositions Standards under review to be adopted Mar/Apr Criteria are in development Will most likely be adopted by TSPC as pre-service stds, perhaps later by state for teacher eval Danielson Domains 4 Components 22 Elements 76 Standards/criteria developed for all components/levels Aligned with InTASC

24. InTASC Std #1: Learner Development PerformancesEssential KnowledgeCritical Dispositions (a) The teacher regularly assesses individual and group performance in order to design and modify instruction to meet learner’s needs in each area of development (cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical) and scaffolds the next level of development. (d) The teacher understands how learning occurs- how students construct knowledge, acquire skills, and develop disciplined thinking processes – and knows how to use instructional strategies that promote student learning. (h) The teacher respects students’ differing strengths and needs and is committed to using this information to further each student’s development.

25. Danielson Domain 3: Instruction ComponentElement 3c: Engaging Students in LearningActivities and Assignments Grouping of Students Instructional Materials and Resources Structure and Pacing

26. Decision #1 Do we adopt/adapt one of these? Design our own? If we adopt/adapt: Which one?

27. Levels of Performance 1234

28. “Place your Bets”  A teacher with many years of experience will perform consistently at the 4 ( exemplary/distinguished) level.  A novice teacher will often perform skills at the 1 ( emerging/ unsatisfactory) level.  Most teachers will perform at the 3 (integrating/proficient) level in skills after five years of experience.  Once teachers reach 3 (integrating/proficiency) in most skills, they will remain at that level t/o their career.

29. Levels of Performance 1234 *Does not yet appear to understand the concepts underlying the components *Working on the fundamental practices *Performance is below licensing standard of do no harm

30. Levels of Performance 12 *Understands concepts and attempts to implement *Implementation is sporadic, intermittent, not successful *Characteristic of student teacher/new teacher/ Experienced teacher learning new skill “minimally competent, improvement will occur with experience, no actual harm being done” Does not yet appear to understand the concepts underlying the components *Working on the fundamental practices *Performance is below licensing standard of do no harm

31. Levels of Performance 12 *Have mastered the work of teaching while working to improve *Understands concepts, knows content *Has a broad array of strategies and activities *Eyes in the back of their heads” *Understands concepts and attempts to implement *Implementation is sporadic, intermittent, not successful *Characteristic of student teacher/new teacher/ Experienced teacher learning new skill “minimally competent, improvement will occur with experience, no actual harm being done Does not yet appear to understand the concepts underlying the components *Working on the fundamental practices *Performance is below licensing standard of do no harm

32. Levels of Performance 1234 *Have mastered the work of teaching while working to improve *Understands concepts, knows content *Has a broad array of strategies and activities *Eyes in the back of their heads *Master teachers making contributions to the field in and outside their school *A community of learners, with students assuming responsibility for learning *Classroom appears to run itself, seamless *Understands concepts and attempts to implement *Implementation is sporadic, intermittent, not successful *Characteristic of student teacher/new teacher/ Experienced teacher learning new skill “minimally competent, improvement will occur with experience, no actual harm being done Does not yet appear to understand the concepts underlying the components *Working on the fundamental practices *Performance is below licensing standard of do no harm

33. Levels of Performance 1234 Emerging Unsatisfactory Does not meet standards Beginning Novice Applying Emerging Basic Developing Working towards Improvement Needed Integrating Proficient Applying Meeting the standard Meets expectations Effective Exemplary Distinguished Master Integrating Expert Innovating Highly Effective Advanced

34. Rubric Choices ? Levels of performance describing developing levels of expertise(beginning to advanced) ? Levels of performance silent on performance “not meeting expectations” ? Levels to include descriptions of what is considered “not meeting ”

35. Decision # 2 How many levels of performance? What information should level #1 provide? –Not meeting standards? OR –Standards are emerging?

36. Decisions: Standards and Criteria Levels of Performance Standards

37. What’s Next? Components of Process # of observations and when? Self-assessment? Self-reflection? Teaching artifacts? Differentiation? Definition of Effectiveness? rated as either proficient or distinguished as a result of a rigorous and comprehensive performance evaluation system; demonstrate at least a year’s worth of student growth using a value added model; his/her school must demonstrate at least a year’s worth of growth using a value-added model; and he/she must meet other performance measures to be determined by the Consortium.

38. Evaluation Activities : Formative and Summative Observations of teaching, professional practice, communications Self-assessment Self-directed inquiry Reflection on practice Collaboration Teaching artifacts: assignments, assessments, worksheets… Planning documents : lesson plans, curriculum units, classroom management plan, assessment Parent and Community Communications: newsletters, student progress reports… Student work Student, parent feedback Communication logs Records

39. Group Agreements: Components Oregon CityTIF Goals linked to student growth/professional growth/SMART Self –assessment Self-reflections Observations: informal and formal Formal: pre-obs. conf, data collection, post observation conf, teacher self reflection

40. Group Agreements: Components Oregon CityCLASS Trajectory towards self- directed learning Portfolios of artifacts Portfolios of professional practice linked to performance ratings Artifacts demonstrating “effectiveness”

41. Free powerpoint template: www.brainybetty.com 41 Best PracticesRequired (state reg)Choices/Decisions Self-AssessmentX GoalsX (SMART)How many? Type? Domains, SIP, Prof’l Growth Observations (data collection and analysis) XHow many? Formal? Informal? Reflections on ObservationX – written, verbal? Feedback on ObservationsX - written Self-reflection on goalsX Portfolios of evidence (student growth, artifacts) X Summative EvaluationAnnualTargeted domains for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3? Components of Evaluation Systems: Probationary

42. Free powerpoint template: www.brainybetty.com 42 Components of Evaluation System: Contract Teachers Best PracticesRequired (state)Choices and Decisions Self-AssessmentX GoalsHow many? SMART goals? SIP goals? Professional growth goals? ObservationsX (informal/formal, how many) Reflection on Obs.X Feedback on Observations X written? Verbal? Differentiated Plans based on performance X Self-Reflection on GoalsX PortfoliosX Summative EvaluationA defined cycle, usually 2 years or 3 years

43. Why Differentiate?? Different stages of career: –Different needs –Different levels of skill Novice –Rapid, intense learning –Need support to develop basic skills Experienced Routines under control Refining skills

44. Free PowerPoint template: www.brainybetty.com 44

45. Differentiated Components Traditional SupervisionGuidedSelf-Directed: Self-Directed Plan Self-Directed: Traditional Supervision StatusProbationary/tempContract Status CycleAnnual Cycle2 year cycle3 year cycle Observations4 obs/per year2 obs/2 years2 obs/3 years6 obs/3yrs Professional GrowthTargeted Growth areas from domains (self-assessment and admin input) Educ selected formative activity for prof’l growth Educ selected formative activity prof’l growth Calendar obs of targeted domains EvaluationAnnual self-reflection Annual admin evaluation Annual status check Biannual self-reflection on domains and self-directed plan Biannual Admin eval on domains and self-directed plan Annual status check Tri-annual self- reflection on progress on self- directed plan Tri-annual admin eval of progress on self-directed plan Annual status check Tri-annual self- reflection on growth in targeted domains Tri-annual admin eval of growth on domains

46. Decision # 3 Do you want to differentiate the system based on teacher performance and experience?

47. Decisions…What is doable? Self- Assess GoalsObs.Reflect on Obs. Written Feedback Self- Reflect on Goals/P GP PortfoliosSumm Eval. Each yr? Before each cycle? How many? Smart format? Linked to stdt growth? Formal/ Informal? How many of each? Differ for prob/cont When: each cycle? each year? In writing or conver. After formal? After informal? Annual? Each cycle? What artifacts? Common comp? Teacher choice? How often? Same for differ plans or Differ evals. for differ. cycle? Multiple Measures of Student Growth

48. The Process Visually 1 Inform staff annually re: guidelines, timelines 2 Self-assessment Goals for professional growth linked to components Goals linked to student growth 3 Observations (informal/formal) Artifacts Student assessments Portfolios 4 Performance Rating on Components 5 Summative Evaluation Multiple measures of student growth Effectiveness

49. Group Agreements

50. Next Steps Homework – review examples to identify forms, examples to be borrowed or adapted Design OCSD handbook Begin discussions of definitions of ‘effectiveness’ Begin developing the ‘training plan’ for fall implementation

51. TIF graphic

52. Feedback What worked? Questions unanswered? Suggestions/next steps: