Oregon s framework for teacher evaluation
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 21

Oregon's Framework for Teacher Evaluation PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 81 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Oregon's Framework for Teacher Evaluation. What do North Clackamas teachers and administrators need to know?. • Sylvia Biggs- RCMS • Doug Bridge- Whitcomb • Rachael Hall- Sunnyside • Cam Kitchen- Mt. Scott • Marty Lefkowitz- CHS • Jenna Miller- HVMS • Mike Potter- View Acres

Download Presentation

Oregon's Framework for Teacher Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Oregon's Framework for Teacher Evaluation

What do North Clackamas teachers and administrators need to know?


• Sylvia Biggs- RCMS

• Doug Bridge- Whitcomb

• Rachael Hall- Sunnyside

• Cam Kitchen- Mt. Scott

• Marty Lefkowitz- CHS

• Jenna Miller- HVMS

• Mike Potter- View Acres

• Aeylin Summers- DO

• Erin Whitlock- OEA

SB 290 Design Committee

• John Beight- HR

• Alyson Brant- ACMS

• Christine Garcia- CHS

• Rob Holloway- SSS

• Jodi Lee- Duncan

• Jason McCammon- SSC

• Mark Pinder- MHS

• Shelly Reggiani- ELL

• Robin Troche- MHS and NCEA


A Brief History Lesson

  • How did we come to do this work?

  • Why now?


Oregon's Waiver and Teacher Evaluation

Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waiver to get out of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements needed certain assurances:

• Senate Bill 290 (2011)

- Evaluation systems collaboratively designed with teachers and exclusive bargaining representative

- Aligned to model core teaching standards

- Multiple-measures to determine proficiencies

• ESEA-No Child Left Behind Waiver (2012)

- Consensus evaluation framework

- Student growth as a “significant factor”

- 2012-2013 development of a model within the framework for each district


SB 290 Requirements

Teacher and administrator evaluations systems must:

• Provide examples of multiple measures;

• Use four performance levels of effectiveness;

• Have student learning as a significant consideration in the evaluation;

• Evaluate teachers and administrators on a regular cycle;

• Have district superintendents report regularly to local boards on their evaluation systems and educator effectiveness.


Oregon's Waiver and Teacher Evaluation

ESEA-No Child Left Behind Waiver:

• Every teacher evaluation in Oregon must include multiple, valid measures tied to established standards of teaching.

• 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 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 Framework Required Elements

  • All district teacher and administrator evaluation and support systems must include the following five elements:


1) Standards of Professional Practice

Adopted Model Core Teaching Standards and Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards

• Interstate Teacher Assessment & Support Consortium (InTASC)

• Four Domains:

1- The Learner and Learning

2- Content

3- Instructional Practice

4- Professional Responsibility


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 describe performance at each level for each standard.

• Rubrics guide individuals toward improving their practice at the next performance level

• District team has selected the Danielson rubric for our model.


3) Multiple Measures

Oregon teacher 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

    (B) Professional Responsibilities

  • Teachers: Evidence of teachers’ progress toward their own professional goals and contribution to schoolwide goals, including collegial learning


3) Multiple Measures

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, in collaboration with their supervisors/ evaluators, will establish student growth goals and select evidence from a variety of valid measures and regularly assess progress.

• Pilots will help determine the definition of “significant.”


3) Multiple Measures

Measures of student learning and growth include three types of measures:


3) Multiple Measures

  • 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 English Learners.


4) Evaluation and Professional Growth Cycle

Critical steps in the cycle

Collaborative process, ongoing feedback, focus on improving effectiveness


4) Evaluation and Professional Growth Cycle

  • Frequency of Evaluations

    • Probationary teachers – every year

    • Contract teachers – at least every two years

    • Probationary administrators – every year

    • Administrators – at least every two years


5) Aligned Professional Development

• Goal is to improve professional practice.

• Evaluations inform educators of strengths and weaknesses.

• System will support informed decisions for professional growth.

• Professional learning must be relevant to the educator's goals and needs.


Timelines

• Our district is partnered with OEA and ODE to pilot the “multiple measures” component of the system from mid-February to mid-May.

• We must submit our assurances to the state for both the certified and administrative systems by June, 2013.

• In the 2013-2014 SY, we will be evaluated according to these new systems.

• We will be “held harmless” for the student achievement part for the year.

• We can still make changes next year as we work the system.


The new systems are Not about:

• Merit pay,

• Reducing any staff member to a score,

• Making staff members fearful,

• Pitting staff members or whole schools against each other.


The new system is about:

• Aligning the system to support staff in teaching and supporting the growth and achievement of all students.

• Supporting staff members in the complex work of teaching and learning.

• Supporting staff in taking risks to help the students who need the most help.

• Helping everyone get what they need to grow: certified staff, administrators and kids.


Questions?

Questions will be tracked, answered and posted on a special section of the website, so all staff can access shared information.


  • Login