Presented by
Steve York and Linda Vrooman Peterson
Office of Public Instruction
Office of Public Instruction
Denise Juneau, Superintendent



Educator evaluation is to 2014 what NCLB
was to 2004
Indications from the Administration as well as
Congress are that educator evaluation will
play a large role in the reauthorization of
ESEA
Waiver vs. Non Waiver States



Established in Administrative Rules of
Montana (ARM)10.55.701(4)
Consists of representatives from the OPI,
SAM, MTSBA, MSSA, MCDE, BPE, MEA-MFT, &
MREA
Implementation – Pilot Year 2013-14
Office of Public Instruction
Denise Juneau, Superintendent









Targets Montana Values
Inspired by Danielson Model
Use of Montana state model is Voluntary
Lengthy, in-depth review of the “best of the
best” in evaluation tools and models
Intended to Improve Instruction
Process is Goal Driven
Cost Effective
Adoptable and Adaptable
Other Models are Acceptable
Office of Public Instruction
Denise Juneau, Superintendent
Core Purpose

Develop a model Montana system for
evaluation of teachers and leaders that
fosters continuous professional
growth, enabling success for all
students.
Office of Public Instruction
Denise Juneau, Superintendent
Big Audacious Goal

By the fall of 2014, all Montana School
Districts will use teacher and principal
evaluation systems aligned to the
accreditation standards assuring
continuous education improvement.
Office of Public Instruction, Denise
Juneau, Superintendent

Align local evaluation system to state
standards ARM 10.55.701(4)

Adopt state model as local evaluation system

Adapt state model as local evaluation system

Implement a different evaluation model and
demonstrate alignment to the state standards
Office of Public Instruction
Denise Juneau, Superintendent



Districts must meet the expectations of ARM
10.55.701(4)(a)
Districts are not required to use the state
model - there is no intention to require
districts to use the state model
State model for evaluation meets the
expectations of the rule

Professional Development

Continuous Improvement

Quality Assurance

Domains

Components

Rubrics

Performance Indicators

Forms

Four Domains* in the State Model Framework
for Teacher Evaluation:
◦ Planning and Preparation
◦ Learning Environment
◦ Instructional Effectiveness for Student Learning
◦ Professional Responsibilities
*Based on The Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching, 2007
Office of Public Instruction
Denise Juneau, Superintendent

Professional Responsibilities/
Goal Setting

Observation Cycle/Formative Feedback

Summative Evaluation

Improvement Action Plan

Forms are ready to use electronically

Teachscape Options

In District Options

Other Vendors
Principal evaluation state model is based on
the ISSLC Standards and modeled after
Delaware’s Appraisal System
Contains four main components:
◦
◦
◦
◦
Vision and Goals;
Culture of Learning;
Management; and
Professional Responsibilities

Review and Revise state model based on
pilot-year experience

Refine Rubrics for model Principal Evaluation

Develop model Superintendent Evaluation

Invitation to Join Cohort 2 for 2014-15

Technical Assistance Available
Office of Public Instruction, Denise
Juneau, Superintendent



Use 2013-14 to assure alignment to the state
standards
Use the online form-filled document to
demonstrate alignment of the local evaluation
system to the state standards
Retain completed alignment form for local
district records
Office of Public Instruction
Denise Juneau, Superintendent
Steve York, Assistant Superintendent
syork@mt.gov
Linda Vrooman Peterson, Division Administrator
lvpeterson@mt.gov
Montana-EPAS on OPI Web page
http://opi.mt.gov/Programs/Accred/index.php?gpm
=1_4
Regional Education Service Area Directors
http://www.opi.mt.gov/Programs/Index.html?gpm=
1_12
Office of Public Instruction
Denise Juneau, Superintendent