Presented by Steve York and Linda Vrooman Peterson Office of Public Instruction Office of Public Instruction Denise Juneau, Superintendent

 Educator evaluation is to 2014 what NCLB was to 2004  Indications from the Administration as well as Congress are that educator evaluation will play a large role in the reauthorization of ESEA  Waiver vs. Non Waiver States

 Established in Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) (4)  Consists of representatives from the OPI, SAM, MTSBA, MSSA, MCDE, BPE, MEA-MFT, & MREA  Implementation – Pilot Year Office of Public Instruction Denise Juneau, Superintendent

 Targets Montana Values  Inspired by Danielson Model  Use of Montana state model is Voluntary  Lengthy, in-depth review of the “best of the best” in evaluation tools and models  Intended to Improve Instruction  Process is Goal Driven  Cost Effective  Adoptable and Adaptable  Other Models are Acceptable Office of Public Instruction Denise Juneau, Superintendent

Core Purpose  Develop a model Montana system for evaluation of teachers and leaders that fosters continuous professional growth, enabling success for all students. Office of Public Instruction Denise Juneau, Superintendent

Big Audacious Goal  By the fall of 2014, all Montana School Districts will use teacher and principal evaluation systems aligned to the accreditation standards assuring continuous education improvement. Office of Public Instruction, Denise Juneau, Superintendent

 Align local evaluation system to state standards ARM (4)  Adopt state model as local evaluation system  Adapt state model as local evaluation system  Implement a different evaluation model and demonstrate alignment to the state standards Office of Public Instruction Denise Juneau, Superintendent

 Districts must meet the expectations of ARM (4)(a)  Districts are not required to use the state model - there is no intention to require districts to use the state model  State model for evaluation meets the expectations of the rule

 Professional Development  Continuous Improvement  Quality Assurance

 Domains  Components  Rubrics  Performance Indicators  Forms

 Four Domains* in the State Model Framework for Teacher Evaluation: ◦ Planning and Preparation ◦ Learning Environment ◦ Instructional Effectiveness for Student Learning ◦ Professional Responsibilities * Based on The Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching, 2007 Office of Public Instruction Denise Juneau, Superintendent

 Professional Responsibilities/ Goal Setting  Observation Cycle/Formative Feedback  Summative Evaluation  Improvement Action Plan

 Forms are ready to use electronically  Teachscape Options  In District Options  Other Vendors

Principal evaluation state model is based on the ISSLC Standards and modeled after Delaware’s Appraisal System Contains four main components: ◦ Vision and Goals; ◦ Culture of Learning; ◦ Management; and ◦ Professional Responsibilities

 Review and Revise state model based on pilot-year experience  Refine Rubrics for model Principal Evaluation  Develop model Superintendent Evaluation  Invitation to Join Cohort 2 for  Technical Assistance Available Office of Public Instruction, Denise Juneau, Superintendent

 Use to assure alignment to the state standards  Use the online form-filled document to demonstrate alignment of the local evaluation system to the state standards  Retain completed alignment form for local district records Office of Public Instruction Denise Juneau, Superintendent

Steve York, Assistant Superintendent Linda Vrooman Peterson, Division Administrator Montana-EPAS on OPI Web page =1_4 Regional Education Service Area Directors 1_12 1_12 Office of Public Instruction Denise Juneau, Superintendent