1. Learning More About Oregon’s ESEA Waiver Plan January 23, 2013

2. © 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST What were the Waiver Requirements on Teacher/Leader Effectiveness? 2

3. Source: Demonstrate a plan for a new teacher and leader evaluation system that includes: ‒At least 3 tiers of differentiation ‒Multiple measures of teacher/leader practice ‒Evidence of growth in student achievement as a significant portion of the overall evaluation measure In tested grades and subjects, evidence must include growth as measured by state assessments, and may include other measures of student learning that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA In non-tested grades and subjects, alternative measures of student learning and performance that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA ‒Plan to use evaluation results to: Help teachers/leaders improve instruction Inform personnel decisions Districts must develop and implement new evaluation systems consistent with state guidelines Must implement plan fully by 2014-15 Teacher/Leader Effectiveness: What did states have to do to get a waiver?

4. Source: Highly qualified teacher (HQT) provisions remain in place – Sanctions related to failure to meet HQT requirements are waived States are not exempt from the requirement to ensure equitable distribution of experienced, in-field and certified teachers – When states and districts move to new evaluation systems, they can use the results of these systems to meet this requirement 13 Teacher/Leader Effectiveness: What accountability provisions did the waiver change?

5. © 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST Teacher and Leader Evaluation: What Did Oregon Commit to Do in its Waiver Application? 5

6. Oregon’s Evaluation System: What is the Proposed Design? OR’s Educator Effectiveness workgroup proposed an elective state-developed evaluation system which specifies certain aspects of the evaluation model, but allows local flexibility in others. Oregon proposed three components in its teacher and principal evaluation system: – Professional Practice – Student Learning and Growth – Professional Responsibilities OR’s waiver plan does not outline how these components should be weighted or combined into a summative evaluation rating.

7. Oregon’s Evaluation System: What is the Proposed Design? Plan to measure practice through classroom observation and examination of teaching artifacts Plan to measure growth in tested subjects against two goals: – First is based on state assessment results – For teachers, second is based on classroom-level tasks or tests determined by teachers and their supervisors/evaluators Note: Classroom-level tasks/tests will not be comparable across schools – For administrators, second is based on other common assessments or other school- or district-wide measures, such as graduation rate. Probationary teachers and administrators will be evaluated annually, and non-probationary teachers and administrators will be evaluated every two years.

8. Oregon’s Evaluation System: How Does the State Plan to Use Evaluation Results? For improving instructional practice, Oregon’s application suggests that: – Results could be used to provide feedback to help educator make adjustments in his/her practice. – Professional learning should be job-embedded, collaborative, and customized to individual educator needs – However, no other clear guidelines were provided. For informing personnel decisions, Oregon is leaving decisions on evaluation use to districts.

9. Oregon’s Evaluation System: What are the State’s Implementation Plans? In fall 2012, ODE conducted a training for district teams. Local systems must submit evaluation plans to ODE by July 2013. ‒As part of plan, LEAs are expected to provide a plan for training all of their staff and evaluators. ‒ODE will review local evaluation plans and approve if determined to meet or exceed state criteria. ‒At least 50 schools are piloting local systems within the state guidelines during the 2012-13 school year to help inform strong design decisions. In 2013-14, ODE will establish peer panels to review local systems’ alignment with state guidelines and identify needs for professional development and technical assistance.

10. Oregon’s Evaluation System: How Does it Address Priority and Focus Schools? Districts will be required to conduct an annual self-evaluation relative to school improvement indicators, and if diagnosis suggests deficiencies in educator effectiveness then the team will review districts’ educator evaluation tools and processes for compliance with the law. – Focus and priority schools that self-diagnose issues in educator effectiveness will be given “significant support” in supporting educators to do their best work.

11. © 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST Teacher and Leader Evaluation: How Does Oregon’s Plan Stack Up to Other States’? 11

12. Promising Areas of Oregon’s Evaluation System: ‒Puts a strong focus on using evaluation results to improve the quality of instruction. Areas of Concern: – It appears that OR will allow each district to customize the state’s educator standards, so that these will not be consistent/comparable across the state. – For teachers of non-tested subjects/grades, the student growth measure does not appear to be comparable across other teachers in that subject/grade, even within the same school or district. – OR leaves some decisions and roles to local districts that they may not have sufficient capacity to handle or have appropriate incentives to do so in a meaningful way. These include: Deciding how/whether to use evaluation results to inform personnel decisions. Providing useful training to staff and evaluators. Relying solely on peer districts to monitor local systems’ alignment with state guidelines and to identify technical assistance and professional development needs. Relying solely on districts to self-assess whether there are deficiencies in educator effectiveness that are impeding school improvement. Oregon’s Evaluation System: Areas of Promise and Concern

13. Key decisions on evaluation design, use, and implementation are still being finalized in many states. ‒In particular, all states are wrestling with how to measure teacher impact on student growth in non-state-tested grades and subject areas. However, some states are adopting promising strategies in one or more of these areas. For example: – LA, NJ, RI & TN: Offer specific details on evaluator and educator training – CO, FL, MA & TN: Use evaluations to improve instruction for all educators (not just low performers) – CO, FL, OK & TN: Use evaluations as a factor in staffing decisions – FL, MN & RI: Give attention to ensuring equitable access to effective teachers Oregon’s Evaluation System: How Does it Stack Up to Other States’?

14. Why Implementation and Use of Evaluations Matters A thoughtfully designed evaluation system that prioritizes teacher and school leader impact on student learning is essential. Designing a system is in many ways the easy part, but putting all the pieces in place successfully is the challenge. However well they may be designed, evaluation systems are, ultimately, only as good as their ability to improve teaching quality, especially for the kids who most need strong teachers.

15. © 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST Oregon’s “Conditional” Waiver: What Must the State Do to Keep It? 15

16. Oregon’s Waiver: What Needs to Be Done to Keep It? The federal government gave Oregon’s waiver “conditional” approval as some details of its plan were still missing. To receive full approval, Oregon must submit to the Department for review and approval an amended request incorporating: – (1) the final version of the new school report card and any other relevant information regarding its new school accountability system – (2) final guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that meet the requirements of ESEA flexibility, including the use of student growth as a significant factor in determining a teacher’s or principal’s summative evaluation rating. So receiving a full waiver is not guaranteed unless these conditions are met.