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

2. 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”

3. 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

4. S.B. 290 Steps to Implementation The Act took effect 7/1/11 State Board adoption of Core Teaching Standards 12/11 Oregon submits proposal for ESEA Flexibility Waiver Governor calls for State Board to provide “further guidance” to school districts by 5/15/12 Districts “customize” standards through “collaborative” process Implementation by 7/1/13

5. Local “Collaborative Process” *Starting point is state standards Open *Collaboration by administrators, teachers, teacher associations * OEA definition: “consensus- driven decision-making” * AG: “an interactive process” * State standards must be “customized” for local district

6. “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”

7. Standards must “attempt to”: Strengthen knowledge, skills, disposition and classroom and administrative practices of educators in public schools. Refine support, assistance and professional growth opportunities, based on individual needs of educator and needs of students, school and school district. Allow each teacher to establish a set of classroom practices and student learning objectives based on individual circumstances of teacher, including assignment of teacher. Establish a “formative growth process” for each teacher that supports professional learning and collaboration. Use evaluation methods based on curricular standards, targeted to needs of each teacher

8. 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 5.No “consideration of” student academic growth S.B. 290: 1. State standards, but “customized” by district 2. Based on “collaborative efforts” of teachers, administrators, unions 3. No specified evaluation processes – yet 4. No mention of action if deficiencies found 5. “Consideration of student academic growth

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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 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.

12. 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. Evaluation must attempt to: Strengthen knowledge, skills, disposition & practices Refine the support, assistance and professional growth based on individual needs. Establish formative growth process that supports professional learning & collaboration. Use evaluation methods, professional development & support targeted to individual needs.

13. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN 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

14. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN 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 Implement during 2013-14

15. 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.

16. S.B. 290 Action Plan 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)

17. S.B. 290 Action Plan Evaluating Professional Responsibilities: *Teacher reflections and self-reports *Professional goal-setting *Parent/student surveys *Peer collaboration (in formative process only) *Portfolios *Building-level leadership

18. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN 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” to be given weight of 20% or more* Classroom- or school-based measures District-developed (collaboratively?) measures State and national measures * Source: 6/8/12 ODE Draft “Framework”

19. S.B. 290 Action Plan 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 two student growth goals and identify measures and evidence to determine goal attainment.

20. S.B. 290 Action Plan 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

21. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN 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

22. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN 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”

23. S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN 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

24. What’s Next? Possible additional changes in OARs to obtain approval of NCLB waiver Possible additional legislative change in 2013 Likely litigation over bargaining issues More opportunities for training, assistance For updates, call The Hungerford Law Firm at 503-650- 7990 or e-mail Nancy@Hungerfordlaw.com