TEACHER
EVALUATION
After S.B. 290
The Hungerford Law Firm
August, 2012
S.B. 290 -- 2011
• Oregon legislature calls for state-adopted
performance standards, with local “customization.”
• Goal: “To improve student academic growth and
learning by:
 “assisting school districts in determining the
effectiveness of teachers and administrations for “human
resource decisions”
 “Improving professional development and classroom and
administrative practices”
1979: O.R.S. 342.850
• 1979 Legislature called for local school boards
to adopt criteria for performance of teachers and
licensed administrators:
 Annual evaluations for probationary and permanent
educators (later every two years for permanent)
 Goal setting, “Multiple observations” required
 Where deficiencies are identified, implementation of
“program of improvement if one is needed to
remedy” the problem
• Standards and procedures developed “in
consultation with” teachers appointed by local
teacher associations
S.B. 290 Steps to Implementation
• The Act took effect 7/1/11
• State Board adoption of Core
Teaching Standards 12/11
• Oregon proposal for ESEA
Flexibility Waiver
• State Board adopts “Framework”
to provide further guidance to
school districts (6/12)
• Districts “customize” standards
through “collaborative” process
• “Pilot” implementation by13-14
Local “Collaborative Process”
Open
*Starting point is state standards
*Collaboration by administrators,
teachers, teacher associations
* OEA definition: “consensusdriven decision-making”
* Leg. counsel: “interactive process”
* State standards may be
“customized” for local district
“Musts” for Standards
*Must “take into consideration multiple measures of teacher
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”
Standards related to student growth?
• “The teacher collects and analyzes data concerning student growth
and performance and develops unit and daily lesson plans that
target skills/knowledge where students are identified as lacking or
below grade level.”
• “The teacher uses instructional practices and maximizes
instructional time focused on student needs, with instruction
differentiated based upon the data analyzed.”
• “The teacher’s instruction results in demonstrable student
growth in the skills and knowledge targeted in daily/unit lesson
plans, as evidenced in multiple measures of student
performance.”
Summary: S.B. 290 Changes
O.R.S. 342.850 (continuing):
S.B. 290:
1.
No State standards
1.
2.
Local standards developed “in
consultation” with teachers
named by union
Goal-setting, multiple
observations required
“Plans of assistance for
improvement” required to
remedy identified deficiencies
No “consideration of” student
academic growth required
2.
3.
4.
5.
3.
4.
5.
State standards, but
“customized” by district
Based on “collaborative
efforts” of teachers,
administrators, unions
No specified evaluation
processes, but ODE-adopted
“Framework” requirements
No mention of action if
deficiencies found
“Consideration of student
academic growth required
Collective Bargaining and Teacher
Evaluation: Pre-S.B. 290
• “Standards of performance or criteria for evaluation”
are permissive subjects of bargaining under PECBA.
• Some districts have CBA language prohibiting use of
student test scores/other data in teacher evaluation
• “Minimum fairness” evaluation procedures are
mandatory for bargaining.
• All other evaluation procedures are permissive.
• Mandatory proposal: Teacher evaluation to be
conducted “in accordance with” O.R.S. 342.850.
Potential Disputes with Unions
• Participation in establishing standards by
parents, students, non-union teachers?
• “Collaboration” versus “mutual agreement”
• “Ratification” by “each party” required?
• Placing standards and/or evaluation process in
CBA (thus becoming grievable)
• Demands to bargain over standards, process
• Status of current CBA evaluation language?
Problematic CBA language
1.
2.
3.
4.
“Evaluations shall not be based solely on student test scores or other
measurements of student performance.”
“All evaluations shall comply with ORS 342.850 and S.B. 290, the ODE
“Framework, and the District’s adopted Evaluation Handbook.”
“Any evaluation based on student academic growth shall be based on
multiple measures of student performance that are customized for the
individual teacher.”
“The District will collaboratively develop standards and processes in
compliance with S.B. 290.”
All such language in the CBA creates
a possibility for grievances. All proposals
are wholly or partially permissive.
S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN
To comply with the requirements of S.B. 290:
1.
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?
•Teacher 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 teachers).
S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN
2. Compare your current standards of
performance to ODE’s “Core Teaching
Standards.” OAR 581-022-1724
•The Learner & Learning
• Content
• Instructional Practice
• Professional Responsibility
Option: Retain current standards but align to State standards
(i.e., “walk across” from Danielson standards)
S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN
3. Establish a process & timeline for
“collaboration” efforts
• Determine size and membership of review group.
• Provide time for “collaboration” with administrators,
teachers, and association.
• 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
S.B. 290 Action Plan
4. Provide for “multiple evidence-based
measures to evaluate teacher 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.
S.B. 290 Action Plan
Evaluating “Professional Practice”:
*Classroom observation, documentation and
feedback (both formal and informal)
*Examination of Artifacts
(lesson plans, curriculum design, scope and
sequence, assignments, student work)
S.B. 290 Action Plan
Evaluating Professional Responsibilities:
*Teacher reflections and self-reports
*Professional goal-setting
*Parent/student surveys
*Peer collaboration (in formative process only)
*Portfolios
*Building-level leadership
S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN
Develop the means for consideration of evidence of
“student academic growth and learning”
“Student growth” = “change in student
achievement between two or more points in time”
currently no specified weighting*
• Classroom- or school-based measures
• District-developed (collaboratively?) measures
• State and national measures
* Piloting districts will use various weighting percentages
S.B. 290 Action Plan
Student Growth Goal Setting Process
• Teachers review baseline data and create goals
measuring learning of all students over year
• Teachers collaborate with evaluator (and with
colleagues) to establish student learning goals
• Teachers establish at least 2 student growth goals &
identify evidence to determine goal attainment.
S.B. 290 Action Plan
EVALUATOR’S ROLE IN GOAL SETTING?
• Collaborate in setting student growth goals
• Discuss rigor and rationale of each goal
• SMART goal process to be used
• Meet with teacher mid- and end-of-year to
discuss progress, change in strategies
• Make a quantitative rating of goal attainment
(Level 1-4), not just based on student growth
Student-Centered Goal-Setting
POSSIBILITIES
•
•
•
•
Building-wide goals, based on the District’s Achievement Compact
Department or grade-level goals based on analysis of test data
Building goals to increase retention, attendance or graduation rates
Individual goals based upon the teacher’s analysis and definition of
students demonstrating adequate “growth and learning.”
• Administrator-directed goals in areas of deficiency
EXAMPLE
“Using beginning of year assessment, I will identify the 25% of my
kindergarten students with the lowest reading/pre-reading skills and
provide targeted instruction so they exit kindergarten with skills no
lower than pre-primer level.”
Sample Student-Centered Goals
Target based on Achievement Compact
Target: Low percentage of 9th-graders “on track”
GOAL (for all 9th-grade teachers): 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: Student growth in physical conditioning/ basic skills
(elementary PE teacher).
GOAL: Increase from 20 to 33% number of students in grades 16 scoring 80 or higher on Presidential Fitness Test.
“Classroom-based” student learning goals
• “85% of beginning band students will elect to
continue into the second-year class.”
• “95% of beginning band students will, by May, be
able to play the complete scale in tune.”
• “95% of beginning band students will, by May, be
able to play two or more songs from the Level I book,
in tune and with regular rhythm.”
Designing Data Collection
The teacher’s goal must be MEASURABLE so reliable
EVIDENCE must be obtained through targeted DATA
COLLECTION.
• Let teacher suggest what evidence would be needed, how
it might be collected
• Ask teacher to design data collection devices, summaries
• Set early deadline for submission of preliminary data
• Use PLC to design/review data
collection
• Plan for data that can be gathered
in observations by administrator.
DATA COLLECTION by Observation
1.
2.
3.
4.
Determine focus of observation, tied to goals/deficiencies
Determine what method of data collection will fit:
Share data with teacher
Set expectations for next observation
*
*
*
*
On-task data
Interaction analysis (focused)
Selective verbatim
Anecdotal (focused)
DATA COLLECTION by Observation
1.
2.
3.
4.
Determine focus of observation, tied to goals/deficiencies
Determine what method of data collection will fit:
Share data with teacher
Set expectations for next observation
*
*
*
*
On-task data
Interaction analysis (focused)
Selective verbatim
Anecdotal (focused)
Post-Observation CONFERENCING
Goal: Increase students’ use of higher-order thinking skills in
7th-grade social studies curriculum.
1. Make available and summarize the “raw data”
Example: During 10-minute direct instruction segment in
7th-grade social studies class, 75% of teacher questions called
for student to respond with simple facts. Teacher called upon
12 of 25 students. All questions requiring higher levels of
thinking (analysis, synthesis) were answered by 2 students.
2. Ask for teacher reflection/comment
3. Ask for teacher to suggest alternative strategies
4. Suggest (or direct) alternate strategies
Post-observation REPORT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Record basic facts (# of students, date/year, time,
class, # of minutes)
Identify the focus of the observation and related goal
Write an objective summary of data collected
Write a summary statement of level of performance
Identify 2-3 suggestions/directions for change
Identify plans for other data collection, additional
observations
Identify teacher self-help, assistance available
When teacher is not improving . . .
•
•
•
•
•
Contact Human Resources Department
Review/summarize history, recent trends
Consider writing (or rewriting) “Directed Goal”
Increase data collection (maybe observation time)
Consider, offer other sources of assistance
When is a Plan of Assistance necessary?
Desirable?
Role of the Association in Evaluation
Process
*No “Weingarten” rights by law
*Examine your collective bargaining agreement and
evaluation handbook. (“The teacher may bring a
representative of the Association to any meeting where a
plan of assistance is being discussed.”)
*Insist on talking to the teacher, not the
representative
Inadequate Student Growth – basis for
nonrenewal or dismissal?
Options
•
Non-renewal of probationary staff
•
Dismissal of probationary staff
•
Non-extension of contract teachers
•
Dismissal of contract teachers
S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN
5. 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
S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN
6. Work to change the “culture” of evaluation
• Individual teacher, building “piloting”?
• PLC discussions of reliable “evidence” of
student growth
• Use of data to focus evaluation efforts
• Identify teacher “inputs” that influence
student “outputs”
S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN
7. Supervise, train, educate the evaluators:
• Use collaborative process to review, revise
administrative standards, evaluation process
• Provide training in observation methods to
establish consistency
• Observe principals in action
• Establish accountability systems to require
identification, remediation efforts
What’s Next?
• Possible additional changes in OARs,
Framework to retain NCLB waiver
• Possible additional legislative change in
2013
• Likely litigation over bargaining issues
• More opportunities for training, assistance
For updates, call The Hungerford Law Firm at 503-6507990 or e-mail Nancy@Hungerfordlaw.com