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
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
• 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
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
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.
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.
Adopted Model Core Teaching Standards and Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards
• Interstate Teacher Assessment & Support Consortium (InTASC)
• Four Domains:
1- The Learner and Learning
3- Instructional Practice
4- Professional Responsibility
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.
Oregon teacher evaluations must include measures from three categories of evidence:
Aligned to the standards of professional practice
3) Multiple Measures
(A) Professional Practice
(B) Professional Responsibilities
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.”
Measures of student learning and growth include three types of measures:
Critical steps in the cycle
Collaborative process, ongoing feedback, focus on improving effectiveness
• 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.
• 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.
• Merit pay,
• Reducing any staff member to a score,
• Making staff members fearful,
• Pitting staff members or whole schools against each other.
• 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 will be tracked, answered and posted on a special section of the website, so all staff can access shared information.