ODE Search

Educator Effectiveness Toolkit - District Models


Educator Effectiveness Using the required elements outlined in the Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems as the organizer, excerpts from existing systems are posted as examples for districts to review and draw upon as they create their own. Several complete models have also been posted.

The models on this page are working documents submitted by pilot school districts. 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.


District Collaboration Grant Sites Contact Information

For the 2013-2014 school year 26 Design and Immplementation Grants were awarded to 26 Oregon districts (individually or as part of a consortium) through a competetive application process.

Teachers

Administrators

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

Lincoln County SD (as of 6/19/2013)

Ashland (as of 6/20/2013)

Pendleton (as of 6/04/2013)
Evidence is listed at the bottom of the rubric

Sherwood (as of 1/31/2013)

Oregon City (as of 6/04/2013)

Observation Evidence Collection Tool

Post-Observation Reflection Questions (McMinnville)
Aligned to Danielson
Ashland (as of 6/19/2013)
Evidence is listed at the bottom of the rubric

Staff Meeting Observation Tool (Salem-Keizer SD)

Post-Observation Conference Tool (Salem-Keizer SD)

Professional Responsibilities

Lincoln County SD (as of 6/19/2013)

Ashland (as of 6/20/2013)

Pendleton (as of 6/04/2013)
Evidence is listed at the bottom of the rubric

Sherwood (as of 1/31/2013)

Oregon City (as of 6/04/2013)

Ashland (as of 6/19/2013)
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 6/20/2013)

Pendleton (as of 6/04/2013)

Sherwood (as of 6/07/2013)

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 6/19/2013)

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 6/20/2013)

Pendleton (as of 6/04/2013)

Salem-Keizer (as of 1/31/2013)

Sherwood (as of 6/07/2013)

Oregon City (as of 06/04/2013)

Bend-LaPine

Ashland (as of 6/19/2013)

Pendleton (as of 1/31/2013)

Oregon City (as of 6/04/2013)

Bend-LaPine

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 6/20/2013)

Pendleton (as of 6/04/2013)
Ashland (as of 6/19/2013)


Complete District Models


These models were submitted by pilot school districts and have been posted as examples because of their oraganization and clarity. These models have demonstrated their alignment to the Oregon Model Core Teaching Standards and the Oregon Educational Leadership Administrator Standards. Therefore, districts choosing to adopt one of these models will not be required to submit a gap analysis or standards crosswalk with their July 1 submission.

Teachers

Administrators

Ashland (as of 6/20/2013)
This model uses the Marshall rubric

Pendleton as of 6/17/2013)
This model uses a district created rubric. The gap analysis is provided at the end of the document.

Redmond (as of 6/05/2013)
This model uses the Danielson 2013 rubric.

Springfield (as of 6/12/2013)
This model uses the Danielson 2011 rubric.

Ashland (as of 6/18/2013)
This model uses a modified Marshall rubric. The gap analysis is provided at the end of the document.

Redmond (as of 6/04/2013)
This model uses an ODE Recommended rubric (Pendleton)

Springfield (as of 6/12/2013)
This model uses a district created rubric. The gap analysis is provided at the end of the document.

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.



Contacts
  • Theresa Richards Email    (503) 947-5736
    Educator Effectiveness - Director
  • Tanya Frisendahl Email    (503) 947-5754
    Educator Effectiveness - Education Specialist
  • Sarah Martin Email    (503) 947-5668
    Educator Effectiveness - Ed. Specialist, Instructional Resources
  • Sarah Phillips Email    (503) 947-5783
    Educator Effectiveness - Education Program Specialist
  • Brian Putnam Email    (503) 947-5806
    Educator Effectiveness - Education Program Specialist

 Having problems finding something? start at ODE SEARCH Visual Preferences  |  Topic Contacts
ODE Sitemap  | News | Publications | Reports | Projects/Programs | Opportunities | Policy | Services Teaching/Learning
Web Policy (e.g. accessibility, nondiscrimination) | RSS | --HELP--


Copyright © 1998-2014 Oregon Department of Education