Matrix 101: The Oregon Matrix
and Summative Evaluations
Spring 2015 Technical Assistance Webinar
Outcomes

Review the role of the Oregon Matrix in the
professional growth cycle

Understand how to read the Oregon Matrix

Identify where the Matrix can be customized

Demonstrate calculation of a summative
score
Summative Evaluations Based on
Multiple Measures
Oregon teacher
evaluations
must include
measures from
three categories
of evidence:
Student Learning
and Growth
(SLG)
Professional
Practice (PP)
Aligned to the
standards of
professional
practice
Professional
Responsibilities
(PR)
Collegial
Facilitative or
Collegial
Facilitative
Facilitative
*SLG Inquiry
* SLG Inquiry
3
3 or 4
4
4
Collegial or
Consulting
Collegial
Collegial
Collegial
2 or 3
3
3
3
Consulting
Consulting
Consulting
Collegial or
Consulting
Y-Axis: PP / PR
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 3
*SLG Inquiry
LEVEL 2
* PP/PR Inquiry
2
2
2
Directed
Directed
Consulting or
Directed
Consulting
* PP/PR Inquiry
* PP/PR Inquiry
LEVEL 1
*Inquiry
Process
2 or 3
1
1
1 or 2
2
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
X-Axis: SLG
Inquiry Process

Takes place when the Y- and X-axes do
not tell the same story

Additional evidence gathered prior to a
determination of plan and/or summative
performance level

Inquiry happens collaboratively

Educator can also provide additional
evidence
Professional Growth Plans

Intersection of the Y-and X-axes determine
overall performance level and corresponding
professional growth plan
◦ Facilitative
◦ Collegial
◦ Consulting
◦ Directed

Who takes the lead between educator
and evaluator in developing professional
growth goals
Part of the evaluation cycle and aligned
professional learning
Y-Axis Example: Professional
Practice & Responsibilities
Example of Rubric Component
I. Planning and
II. Classroom
III. Instruction
Preparation
Environment
1a. Knowledge of
2a. Creating an
3a. Communicating
Content and Pedagogy Environment of
with Students
Respect and Rapport 3b. Questioning and
1b. Demonstrating
Knowledge of Students 2b. Establish a
Discussion Techniques
1c. Setting Instructional Culture for Learning 3c. Engaging Students
Outcomes
1d.Demonstrating
Knowledge of
Resources
1e.Designing Coherent
Instruction
1f.Designing Student
Assessments
2c. Managing
Classroom
Procedures
2d. Managing
Student Behavior
2e. Organizing
Physical Space
in Learning
IV. Professional
Responsibilities
4a. Reflecting on
Teaching
4b. Maintaining
Accurate Records
4c. Communicating
with Families
3d. Using Assessment 4d. Participating in a
in Instruction
Professional
Community
3e. Demonstrating
Flexibility and
Responsiveness
4e. Growing and
Developing
Professionally
4f. Showing
Professionalism
Y-Axis = PP/PR Rating

Add up all component scores for
total points possible;

Divide by number of components
in your rubric;

Get a rating between 1 and 4;

Use Y-Axis threshold to
determine PP/PR level:
◦ 3.6 - 4.0 = 4
◦ 2.81-3.59 =3
EXAMPLE


District rubric with 20
components
Component ratings:
◦ 17 components were rated
3; and 3 were rated 2 = 57
points possible
◦ 57/20=2.85
◦ 1.99 – 2.8 = 2 *
◦ < 1.99 = 1
*PP/PR Scoring Rule: If the educator
scores two 1’s in any PP/PR component and
his/her average score falls between 1.992.499, the educator’s performance level
cannot be rated above a 1.
 2.85 = Level 3 PP/PR
Rating
X-Axis = SLG Rating
• SLG performance level based on two
goals
• Two-year cycle select two of four goals
• Score SLG goals
• Get a rating between 1 and 4;
• Use X-Axis thresholds to determine
SLG level:
◦ 4 = both goals 4s
◦ 3 = both goals 3s; one goal 3 & one
goal 4; one goal 2 & one 4
◦ 2 = both goals 2s; one goal 2 & one
3; one goal 1 & one 3; one goal 4
& one 1
◦ 1= both goals 1s; one goal 1 & one 2



EXAMPLE
One SLG was rated 2
One SLG was rated 3
X-Axis Rating = Level 2
SLG Rating
X Axis - Scoring SLGs
• Category 2 goals scored using state SLG
Scoring Rubric
• ODE is developing guidance on using
Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) for
measuring Category 1 goals
www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3475
EXAMPLE:Y-axis = 3 & X-axis = 2
Collegial
Facilitative or
Collegial
Facilitative
Facilitative
*SLG Inquiry
* SLG Inquiry
3
3 or 4
4
4
Collegial or
Consulting
Collegial
Collegial
Collegial
2 or 3
3
3
3
Consulting
Consulting
Consulting
Collegial or
Consulting
Y-Axis: PP / PR
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 3
*SLG Inquiry
LEVEL 2
* PP/PR Inquiry
2
2
2
Directed
Directed
Consulting or
Directed
Consulting
* PP/PR Inquiry
* PP/PR Inquiry
LEVEL 1
*Inquiry
Process
2 or 3
1
1
1 or 2
2
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
X-Axis: SLG
What is required…

All districts must use the Oregon Matrix
to calculate summative scores beginning
this year (2014-15)
◦ Includes established X and Y thresholds

All summative scores for teachers and
building principals must be reported to
ODE

Summative information must be used by
districts to inform professional growth
plans
What can be customized…
The performance level labels
 The Professional Growth Plan’s (PGP) names*
 Additional details on what each PGP looks like*
 What “SLG focus” PGP looks like
 Additional inquiry process ideas
 Other systemic differentiated supports, such as:




Observations
Frequency of check-in’s/meetings with evaluators
Self-reflection practices
*Districts must keep the intent of the “plans” as defined in the
Oregon Matrix guidance
Resources

Toolkit
www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3759
◦ Oregon Framework
◦ Oregon Matrix guidance
Resources from Districts
www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3853

◦ Professional Growth Cycle conference materials

Additional technical assistance from ODE
Questions?
Contacts
Educator Effectiveness Team:
 Tanya Frisendahl
tanya.frisendahl@state.or.us
 Sarah Martin
sarah.martin@state.or.us
 Sarah Phillips
sarah.phillips@state.or.us
 Brian Putnam
brian.putnam@state.or.us