TEACHER EVALUATION After S.B. 290 The Hungerford Law Firm August, 2012.

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”

*Starting point is state standards Open *Collaboration by administrators,

teachers, teacher associations

* OEA definition: “consensus-

driven 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):1. No State standards

2. Local standards developed “in consultation” with teachers named by union

3. Goal-setting, multiple observations required

4. “Plans of assistance for improvement” required to remedy identified deficiencies

5. No “consideration of” student academic growth required

S.B. 290:1. State standards, but

“customized” by district

2. Based on “collaborative efforts” of teachers, administrators, unions

3. No specified evaluation processes, but ODE-adopted “Framework” requirements

4. No mention of action if deficiencies found

5. “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.

• 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?

Potential Disputes with Unions

Problematic CBA language

1. “Evaluations shall not be based solely on student test scores or other measurements of student performance.”

2. “All evaluations shall comply with ORS 342.850 and S.B. 290, the ODE “Framework, and the District’s adopted Evaluation Handbook.”

3. “Any evaluation based on student academic growth shall be based on multiple measures of student performance that are customized for the individual teacher.”

4. “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).


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)


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.


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)


Evaluating Professional Responsibilities:*Teacher reflections and self-reports

*Professional goal-setting

*Parent/student surveys

*Peer collaboration (in formative process only)

*Portfolios

*Building-level leadership


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


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.


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.”

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 1-6 scoring 80 or higher on Presidential Fitness Test.

Sample Student-Centered Goals

“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. Determine focus of observation, tied to goals/deficiencies

2. Determine what method of data collection will fit:

3. Share data with teacher

4. 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?


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


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”


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, assistanceFor updates, call The Hungerford Law Firm at 503-650-

7990 or e-mail [email protected]

TEACHER EVALUATION After S.B. 290 The Hungerford Law Firm August, 2012.

Documents

Transcript of TEACHER EVALUATION After S.B. 290 The Hungerford Law Firm August, 2012.