1 / 22

ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290

ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290. Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1 , 2013. Before there was S.B. 290. 1979: ORS 342.805 et seq., which applies to teachers and administrators (except superintendent)

samara
Download Presentation

ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION:Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1 , 2013

  2. Before there was S.B. 290 • 1979: ORS 342.805 et seq., which applies to teachers and administrators (except superintendent) • ORS 342.835: Probationary administrators may be dismissed or nonrenewed for “any cause deemed in good faith sufficient” by the school board. • ORS 342.850: Establishes requirements of evaluation process, including “programs of assistance for improvement” to be developed “if one is needed to remedy” a deficiency

  3. Before S.B. 290 Post-probationary administrators can be dismissed for any of the reasons listed in ORS 342.865, including inadequate performance. Post-probationary administrators were given “permanent status” and not subject to periodic contract renewal but were subject to dismissal at any time. Dismissed administrators could appeal to the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board.

  4. After S.B. 880 in 1997 • Administrators are employed on three-year contracts. By Mar.15 of second year, the board either: • Non-extends the contract • “Rolls over” the contract for a new 3-year term • Extends the contract for only one more year • Non-extensions cannot be appealed to FDAB • Administrators may be transferred to another administrative position without loss of pay

  5. After S.B. 290 in 2013 Local districts must adopt standards that mirror State Board-adopted (ISLLC-based) standards “customized” through “collaborative efforts” Administrators must be evaluated every year during probation and then every other year, using a four-level rating scale. Evaluation must be based on “multiple measures” that include goal-setting around “student learning and growth”

  6. Local “Collaborative Process” *No prescribed membership of team Open *Collaboration by administrators with superintendent? * OEA position: teachers included * SB 290: Standards must be “separately developed for teachers and administrators”

  7. “Musts” for Standards *Must “take into consideration multiple measures of educator effectiveness *Must “take into consideration evidence of student academic growth and learning based on multiple measures of student progress, including performance data of students, schools, and school districts.” *Must be “research-based” *Must be “customized” for each district, which may include “individualized weighting and application of standards”

  8. Potential Issues in Implementation • Disagreement over “ownership” of student learning and growth. What if principal is in first year in the building? What about District-level administrators below assistant superintendent? • Disagreement over data to be used to measure “administrator’s impact on academic growth of all students” • Does drop in test scores = unsatisfactory? • Linked to success of teachers on their goals? If teachers average 2.75 on “student learning and growth” does principal score 2.75 automatically?

  9. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN To comply with the requirements of S.B. 290: • Determine if your current evaluation procedures meet all requirements of S.B. 290 and the “Framework”: •Four-level rating scale? •Annual goal-setting process (SMART goals) that includes at least two goals related to student learning? •Administrator and evaluator select evidence of goal completion? •Mid-year and end-of-year meeting over progress on student growth goals? •Summative evaluation every year (probationary) and at least every two years (contract administrators).

  10. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN • Compare your current standards of performance to ODE’s Educational Leader/Administrator Standards (OAR 581-022-1725) •Visionary Leadership • Instructional Improvement • Effective Management • Inclusive Practice • Ethical Leadership • Socio-Political Context Option: Retain current standards but align to State standards

  11. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN • Establish a process & timeline for “collaboration” efforts • Determine size and membership of review group. • Provide time for “collaboration” with administrators, superintendent, board members? • Determine involvement of other stakeholders • Set timelines for work product of collaboration group. • Allow time for school board study, adoption • Allow time for administrator training • “Pilot” implementation during 2013-14

  12. S.B. 290 Action Plan Provide for “multiple evidence-based measures to evaluate administrator performance and effectiveness, including: *Evidence of professional practice *Evidence of Professional Responsibilities *Evidence of Student Learning and Growth Evidence from all three categories must be used to “holistically” rate performance.

  13. S.B. 290 Action Plan Evaluating “Professional Practice”: *Observation, documentation and feedback 360º feedback, surveys developed with staff, staff communication, teacher development, feedback to teachers *Examination of Artifacts Handbooks, records of mentoring/coaching, teacher use of data, staff meetings, teacher observations, teacher evaluations

  14. S.B. 290 Action Plan Evaluating Professional Responsibilities: *Administrator’s reflections and self-reports *Professional goal-setting, school-wide goals *Parent and community involvement *School-wide budget *Staff retention rate *Collaborative leadership

  15. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN Develop at least two goals for “student academic growth and learning,” aligned with Achievement Compact indicators where applicable • At least one goal must use state assessment as a measure (“e.g., building-level data on proficiency and growth in reading and math, including all subgroups”) • Common national, regional, district-developed measures (e.g., ACT, AP, IB, DIBELS, C-PAS) • Other school-wide or district-wide measures (Graduation rate, attendance rate, dropout rate, discipline data, college and career-readiness indicators)

  16. Sample Student-Centered Goals Target based on Achievement Compact Target: Increase percentage of 9th-graders “on track” GOAL: Increase from 50% to 60% students who have 6 or more credits at the end of 9th grade. Target based on common national measure: Target: Increase student participation/success on AP classes GOAL: Increase from 5% to 20% percentage of minority students in grades 11-12 enrolled in AP classes and earning “3” or higher

  17. “School-based” student learning goals? “Number of suspensions and expulsions of H.S./M.S. minority students will decline from 50 to 35. “Participation of girls in athletics will increase from 25% to 35% of female H.S. students. “H.S. drama, speech, and music teams will increase number of students sent to state competition from __ to ___.”

  18. Designing Data Collection The goal must be MEASURABLE so reliable EVIDENCE must be obtained through targeted DATA COLLECTION. • Administrator suggests what evidence would be needed, how it might be collected • Administrator designs data collection devices, summaries • Set early deadline for submission of preliminary data • Use staff, parent surveys? • Plan for data that can be gathered in observations of administrator.

  19. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN • Involve and inform the school board and public. • Present to Board an Action Plan to meet S.B. 290 • Introduce “collaboration” group • Address Board member opinions with research, information • Allow time for presentation of recommendation • Schedule Board vote in spring 2013

  20. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN • Work to change the “culture” of evaluation • What is meant by 2013-14 “piloting”? • Group discussions of reliable “evidence” of student growth, experience of first year • Use of data to focus evaluation efforts • Identify administrator “inputs” that influence student “outputs”

  21. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN • Supervise, train, educate the evaluators: • Use collaborative process to review, revise administrative standards, evaluation process • Provide training in observation methods to establish consistency • Build in peer, group assessment • Establish accountability systems to require identification, remediation efforts

  22. What’s Next? • Possible additional changes in OARs, Framework to retain NCLB waiver • Possible legislative change in 2013? • Likely litigation over use of evaluations in personnel decisions? • More opportunities for training, assistance For updates, call The Hungerford Law Firm at 503-781-3458 or e-mail Nancy@Hungerfordlaw.com

More Related