Home > Teacher Quality - Title II-A > Educator Effectiveness Toolkit - Differentiated Performance Levels

Educator Effectiveness Toolkit - Differentiated Performance Levels

Educator Effectiveness System Process
System Goals
Stakeholders/Communication
Standards for Practice
Performance Rubrics
Multiple Measures
Professional Practice
Professional Responsibilities
Student Learning & Growth
Evaluation Cycle & Aligned Professional Learning
Assurance Template
District Models
2012-13 Regional Workshops
Toolkit Home
Educator Effectiveness Home

Differentiated Performance Rubrics

Oregon’s framework for evaluation is designed to assess teacher and administrator performance with respect to the Model Core Teaching Standards and Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards (i.e., standards of professional practice). To assess performance, evaluators use a rubric.

Rubrics are designed to help educators and evaluators (1) develop a consistent, shared understanding of what proficient performance looks like in practice, (2) develop a common terminology and structure to organize evidence, and (3) make informed professional judgments about formative and summative performance ratings on each Standard and overall.

Oregon’s evaluation framework uses a rating scale based on four performance levels: Level 1 (lowest) to Level 4 (highest). All district evaluation systems must include rubrics that use the four levels of performance identified in the Framework. Districts have the flexibility to name the levels, for example ineffective, emerging, effective, and highly effective. Regardless of the terms used, they must be aligned to the performance levels described in the Framework, and Level 3 must represent a proficient educator.

Level 1 - Does not meet standards; performs below the expectations for good performance under this standard; requires direct intervention and support to improve practice
Level 2 - Making sufficient progress toward meeting this standard; meets expectations for good performance most of the time and shows continuous improvement; expected improvement through focused professional learning and growth plan
Level 3 -Consistently meets expectations for good performance under this standard; demonstrates effective practices and impact on student learning; continues to improve professional practice through ongoing professional learning (This level identifies a proficient educator)
Level 4 - Consistently exceeds expectations for good performance under this standard; demonstrates highly effective practices and impact on student learning; continued expansion of expertise through professional learning and leadership opportunities

Future Reporting Requirements for Teacher and Administrator Evaluations
Federal regulations require states and districts to report data on teacher and principal evaluations. As districts select or develop a rubric it is important that the rubric is aligned to the Oregon Framework and adopted Model Core Teaching (InTASC) Standards and Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards. Future data will be collected based on the state adopted standards and Oregon’s Framework. ODE will work with stakeholders and technical experts to design a meaningful reporting system that takes into account rubrics that are “crosswalked” to the standards.

Guiding Questions For Differentiated Performance Rubrics
	Teachers	Administrators
ODE Recommended Rubrics The Oregon Department of Education and stakeholder workgroup conducted a review and crosswalk of rubrics aligned to the standards. ODE recommends districts consider the rubrics in the following table for use in their local evaluation systems. Districts may adopt or adapt these rubrics. Adaptation must be aligned to the standards. Districts may choose to use other rubrics but must submit a crosswalk to ODE to provide evidence of strong alignment to the standards. The July 1, 2013 web submission template will offer a check box for the listed rubrics. Districts choosing to implement their own rubric will be required to submit both their rubric and a completed crosswalk showing alignment to the standards with their submission.
	The Danielson Group Download the Danielson Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument (2011) here Match-gap analysis against Oregon standards	Salem-Keizer SD Administrative Assessment and Evaluation Rubric Match-gap analysis to Oregon standards
	Marshall's Teacher Evaluation Rubric Match-gap analysis against Oregon standards	Oregon Educational Leadership/Administrator Rubric This rubric is fully aligned to the adopted Oregon Educational Leadership/Administrator standards as its foundation so no match-gap was conducted.
	Marzano's Causal Teacher Evaluation Model Marzano's levels of Beginning - Innovating align to the four performance levels in Oregon's Framework. Match-gap analysis against Oregon standards	Pendleton Administrator Rubric
	Salem-Keizer SD Licensed Staff Assessment and Evaluation Rubric Match-gap analysis against Oregon standards
Rubrics Requiring Additional Alignment Staff at the Regional Northwest Comprehensive Center (NWRCC), conducted match gap analyses of several rubrics already in use in Oregon districts for the purpose of determining their degree of alignment to the Oregon’s Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards. In the event that the majority of the indicators for a particular standard had no evidence, language describing a proficient administrator was inserted in the “Addressing the Gap” column. This language appears in red. Districts choosing to use a rubric with a standards gap would need to add the necessary language in their district rubric for every level for each of the gaps identified.
		Marshall Principal Rubric Districts wishing to use this rubric must address the gaps in the version they submit. Match-gap analysis against Oregon standards
		Marzano Principal Rubric Districts wishing to use this rubric must address the gaps in the version they submit. Match-gap analysis against Oregon standards
Tools for District-created or Adapted Rubrics All district evaluation systems must include rubrics that use the four levels of performance identified in the Framework, but districts have the flexibility to name the levels. Regardless of the terms used, they must be aligned to the performance levels described in the Framework and Level 3 must represent a proficient educator.
	Teacher Rubric Gap Analysis Tool This template is provided for districts that choose to use an existing district rubric rather than an ODE recommended rubric as part of their evaluation system. This template must be included with the district submission, and will be reviewed to assure that district rubrics align to Oregon’s standards.	Administrator Rubric Gap Analysis Tool This template is provided for districts that choose to use an existing district rubric rather than an ODE recommended rubric as part of their evaluation system. This template must be included with the district submission, and will be reviewed to assure that district rubrics align to Oregon’s standards.
Specialist Rubrics As districts design their evaluation and support systems they are identifying staff whose work may not completely align with the district adopted rubrics for teachers and administrators. The rubrics below are samples of specialist rubrics in use in other districts. Disclaimer: The inclusion of these rubrics does not constitute an endorsement by the Oregon Department of Education.
	Salem-Keizer SD Behavior Specialist Coach Counselor Mentor Speech Pathologist
	Counselor Rubric (Bend SD)
	Counselor Rubric (Pendleton SD)
	Student Support Specialist Rubric (Roseburg SD)
	Corvallis SD These rubrics developed by the Corvallis School District are based on the work of Charlotte Danielson. Instructional/Therapeutic Specialist Library/Media Specialist Counselor Special Education