|
|
Samples from District Models
Excerpts from evaluation and support system models being designed by Oregon districts are provided below, organized by the required elements outlined in the Oregon Framework. |
|
|
|
|
Teachers |
|
Administrators |
|
|
Standards for Professional Practice
School districts must include the Core Teaching Standards and Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards adopted by the State Board of Education for all evaluations of teachers and administrators.
SEE FRAMEWORK |
|
|
|
|
|
Oregon Model Core Teaching Standards
Review the InTASC Standards for detailed information on indicators. |
|
Oregon Educational Leadership/Administrator Standards
|
|
|
Differentiated Performance Rubrics
All district evaluation systems must include rubrics that use the four levels of performance identified in the Framework. Level 3 must represent a proficient educator. SEE FRAMEWORK |
|
|
|
|
|
ODE Recommended Rubrics
Specialist Rubrics
|
|
ODE Recommended Rubrics |
|
|
Multiple Measures
To provide a balanced view of performance, evaluations of all teachers and building administrators must include evidence from the following three categories: (A) Professional Practice, (B) Professional Responsibilities, and (C) Student Learning and Growth. SEE FRAMEWORK |
|
|
Professional Practice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ashland (as of 3/22/2013)
Pendleton (as of 1/31/2013)
Evidence is listed at the bottom of the rubric
Sherwood (as of 1/31/2013)
|
|
Ashland (as of 1/31/2013)
Evidence is listed at the bottom of the rubric
|
|
|
Professional Responsibilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ashland (as of 3/22/2013)
Pendleton (as of 1/31/2013)
Evidence is listed at the bottom of the rubric
Sherwood (as of 1/31/2013)
|
|
Ashland (as of 1/31/2013)
Evidence is listed at the bottom of the rubric |
|
|
Student Learning & Growth |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMART Goal Process for Teachers (Chalkboard)
This document was adapted from one designed by the Kentucky Department of Education.
Ashland (as of 3/22/2013)
Pendleton (as of 1/31/2013)
Sherwood (as of 1/31/2013)
Lincoln County (as of 1/31/2013)
North Clackamas (as of March 21,
2013)
|
|
SMART Goal Process for Administrators (Chalkboard)
This document was adapted from one designed by the Kentucky Department of Education.
Ashland (as of 2/4/2013)
Pendleton (as of 1/31/2013)
Lincoln County (as of 1/31/2013)
|
|
|
Evaluation & Professional Growth Cycle
Teacher and administrator evaluation systems are based on a cycle of continuous professional growth and learning. SEE FRAMEWORK |
|
|
|
|
Ashland (as of 3/22/2013)
Pendleton (as of 1/31/2013)
Salem-Keizer (as of 1/31/2013)
Sherwood (as of 1/31/2013)
|
|
Ashland (as of 2/4/2013)
Pendleton (as of 1/31/2013)
|
|
|
Aligned Professional Learning
Aligned evaluation systems inform educators of strengths and weaknesses and provide opportunities to make informed decisions regarding individual professional growth. High quality professional learning is sustained and focused and relevant to the educator’s goals and needs. SEE FRAMEWORK |
|
|
|
|
Ashland (as of 2/4/2013)
Pendleton (as of 1/31/2013)
|
|
Ashland (as of 2/4/2013)
|
|
|
Complete District Models
These models are working documents submitted by pilot school districts. They have received an initial review by ODE and represent the most complete plans submitted to-date. Districts that choose to use these models as the foundation for their collaborative work should ensure that all required elements are included in their final evaluation and support system. |
|
|
|
|
Teachers |
|
Administrators |
|
|
|
|
Ashland (as of 3/21/2013)
Pendleton as of 1/31/2013) |
|
Ashland (as of 2/04/2013)
|
|
|
Resources for Getting Started |
|
|
Oregon Framework for Teacher & Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems
The purpose of the state framework is to provide districts guidance as they develop or align and implement local systems. |
|
SB 290 Action Plan Document (Chalkboard Project)
These materials are designed to help district teams organize their work related to SB 290. The worksheets are focused on each of the five required elements and can be used separately so that individuals or small groups can work on multiple tasks simultaneously. |
|
OEA Teacher Evaluation & Support System Guidebook
This guidebook from OEA and the Center for Great Public Schools provides guidance for building an effective, collaboratively designed evaluation system with an emphasis on supporting ongoing professional growth for teachers. |
|
|
Evaluation & Support System Assurance Template
Find the assurance form that all districts must submit by July 1, 2013, along with directions for submission and related resource documents. |
|
Roadmap to Success: What does my district need to do?
This document provides information on the process districts may choose to follow to complete their evaluation and support system to meet the July 1, 2013 deadline. |
|
Template for District Evalution and Support Systems
This template was created to provide a format for districts to use as they develop their evaluation and support system. It is provided as a model only, and is not required for submission. |
|
|
A Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems (TQ Center)
This tool, developed by the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, is designed to assist states and districts in constructing high-quality teacher evaluation systems in an effort to improve teaching and learning. |
|
A Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive Principal Evaluation Systems (TQ Center)
This tool developed by the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher quality is designed to assist states and districtsThis tool developed by the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher quality is designed to assist states and districts in developing systems of principal evaluation and support. |
|
|