INDICATOR Insufficient Progressing Sufficient Evidence T1.5 Educators are evaluated on the effectiveness of the quality of instruction as evidenced in the Model Core Teaching Standards; instructional strategies are aligned to CCSS. The evaluation system has few or no features that define high quality instructional practices aligned to CCSS and there is little or no link between these features to evaluation tools and processes. There is little or no evidence that evaluation includes multiple formal and informal classroom observations that support making valid inferences about the quality of instruction. There is little or no evidence that evaluation includes the protocols, processes and a rationale for a systematic review of classroom artifacts related to instructional planning and activities. The evaluation system has features that define high quality instructional practices, but may not be aligned to CCSS or include links between the features and evaluation tools and processes. Evaluation includes multiple formal and informal classroom observations that support making inferences about the quality of instruction, but the quality of the observations or structure of the observations may limit the validity of the inferences. Evaluation includes the protocols, processes, a rationale for, and a systematic review of classroom artifacts related to instructional planning and activities, but the implementation may limit the validity of inferences The evaluation system has specific features that define high quality instructional practices, aligned to CCSS, and directly links these features to evaluation tools and processes. Evaluation includes multiple formal and informal classroom observations that support making valid inferences about the quality of instruction. Evaluation includes protocols, processes, a rationale for, and implementation of a systematic review of classroom artifacts related to instructional planning and activities that support making valid inferences about the quality of instruction. Guiding Questions 1.5: What is the process or strategies used in observation? How frequently are observations conducted? How many observations within a cycle? What feedback is provided and how is it provided? What is the process of artifact selection and review? How frequently is the artifact review conducted? What feedback is provided and how is it provided? How does the system ensure educators implement effective instructional strategies? How is teacher knowledge of CCSS and/or other academic content standards evaluated through observation, artifact review, and measures of professional responsibility?
integrated with and supportive of district initiatives and strategic plan. Data is used to develop a coherent approach to educator quality, professional learning and continuous improvement. the evaluation system is integrated with strategic planning, professional learning, and continuous improvement. adequate procedural safeguards and are reviewed for possible bias to assure that all educators are treated fairly throughout the evaluation process. The evaluation system includes a general approach for integrating district initiatives and educator evaluation, but the specifics may not be systemic. and are reviewed for possible bias to assure that all educators are treated fairly throughout the evaluation process. The evaluation integrates district initiatives and educator evaluation through common performance goals (e.g., school-wide, to assure that educators develop and contribute to attaining district goals. Guiding Questions 1.9: How does the district collect and analyze feedback on implementation of the evaluation and support system? What is the district’s collaborative process for monitoring and improving the evaluation and support system? What is the process to identify, review and evaluate data to measure and improve the effectiveness of the district’s evaluation system? What is the process for making recommendations for revisions to the system based upon this review? What procedural safeguards (e.g., appeals, inquiry process, evaluator criteria) are included in the system to assure educators are treated fairly in the evaluation process? CRITERIA 2: District evaluation and support systems emphasize professional growth and continuous improvement of educators’ professional practice to enhance student performance. These systems provide quality assurance of all educators and differentiate evaluation processes based upon level of experience, job assignment, and information. INDICATOR Insufficient Progressing Sufficient Evidence T2.1 Educator evaluation systems establish a continuous process that includes the collection and analysis of information about an educator’s performance, the establishment of individual goals for There is little or no evidence that informal and formal evaluation activities yield detailed feedback that is used to inform recommendations for professional growth. There is little or no written The majority of informal and formal evaluation activities yield detailed feedback and this feedback is used to inform recommendations for professional growth. Written feedback is provided, but All informal and formal evaluation activities yield detailed feedback and this feedback is used to inform recommendations for professional growth. Written feedback is provided and
at least every two years. Educators on a two-year cycle receive on-going feedback in the year. Evaluation systems differentiate procedures based on the level of an educator’s experience. there is little or no evidence of formal and informal measures that assure educators in evaluation years continue to demonstrate effective performance and are progressing on meeting professional expectations. The evaluation system provides little or no differentiation for educators who are new to the profession, new to the district or who are new to a role category. In two-year evaluation cycles, there are informal measures that assure educators continue to demonstrate effective performance and are progressing on meeting professional expectations, but no formal measures. The district evaluation system differentiates support that recognizes the needs of new educators. In two‐year evaluation cycles, there are formal and informal measures that assure educators continue to demonstrate effective performance and are progressing on meeting professional expectations. The district evaluation system differentiates support that recognizes the needs of new educators and those educators whose roles have changed. Guiding Questions 2.3: How does the evaluation and support system differentiate based upon experience, assignment, and prior evaluations (e.g., number of observations, formal or informal, announced or unannounced, specifics of support – team or individual mentor, self-directed or supervisor directed)? INDICATOR Insufficient Progressing Sufficient Evidence T2.4 The district has a process in place to determine an educator’s summative evaluation rating based on the Oregon Matrix Model for Educator Summative Evaluations which includes: professional practice and professional responsibilities; and student learning and growth as a significant factor. There is little or no evidence that the combination of evaluation from these three areas is used to determine the administrator’s summative rating aligned to the Oregon Matrix. The district is developing their summative model which combines evaluations from these three areas to determine the administrator’s summative rating aligned to the Oregon Matrix requirements. The combination of evaluation from these three areas is used to determine the administrator teacher’s summative rating aligned to the Oregon Matrix requirements. Guiding Questions 2.4: What is the district’s plan to incorporate the Oregon Matrix summative model into their evaluation system?
How are demonstrations of professional responsibilities measured? How observations and artifact collection are differentiated for central office administrators? INDICATOR Insufficient Progressing Sufficient Evidence A1.5 Administrators are evaluated on the effectiveness of the quality of educational leadership as evidenced in the Oregon Standards for Educational Leadership IISLLC). Instructional leadership is evidenced by alignment of curriculum and instruction to CCSS. The evaluation system has few or no features that define high quality leadership practices and there is little or no link between these features to evaluation tools and processes. There is little or no evidence that evaluation includes multiple formal and informal observations that support making valid inferences about the quality of leadership. There is little or no evidence that evaluation includes the protocols and processes for a systematic review of artifacts related to administrator performance. The evaluation system has features that define high quality leadership practices, but may not include links between the features and evaluation tools and processes. Evaluation includes multiple formal and informal observations that support making inferences about the quality of leadership, but the quality of the observations or structure of the observations may limit the validity of the inferences. Evaluation includes the protocols and processes for a systematic review of artifacts related to administrator performance, but the implementation may limit the validity of inferences The evaluation system has specific features that define high quality leadership practices and directly links these features to evaluation tools and processes. Evaluation includes multiple formal and informal observations that support making valid inferences about the quality of leadership. Evaluation includes protocols and processes for, and implementation of a systematic review of artifacts related to administrator performance that support making valid inferences. Guiding Questions 1.5: What is the process or strategies used in observation? How frequently are observations conducted? How many observations within a cycle? What feedback is provided and how is it provided? What is the process of artifact selection and review? How frequently is the artifact review conducted? What feedback is provided and how is it provided? How does the system ensure administrators implement effective leadership strategies? How do observations and review of artifacts of leadership practice and demonstration of professional responsibilities reflect administrator support for CCSS implementation?
INDICATOR Insufficient Progressing Sufficient Evidence A1.6 The district’s student learning and growth goal setting process is aligned with the state requirements defined in the Student Learning and Growth (SLG) goal guidance. Assessments used for SLG goals meet state assessment criteria. There is little or no evidence that administrators are evaluated on the effectiveness of their impact on student learning and growth as defined by the SLG goal guidance. There is little or no evidence that assessments used for SLG goals meet sate criteria. District leadership teams have reviewed the revised SLG goal guidance and state assessment criteria and are working to align the district’s evaluation system with state requirements. Administrators are evaluated on the effectiveness of their impact on student learning and growth as defined by the SLG goal guidance and assessments used to measure SLG goals meet state criteria. Guiding Questions 1.6: What is the district’s process for setting SLG goals? Does the district use the state SLG Goal template and scoring rubric? Does the district ensure that the administrator’s collective SLG goals encompass an appropriate grouping of students? Does the district ensure that administrators use state assessments for one SLG goal? Does the district ensure that Category 2 assessments are implemented consistently school-wide or district-wide? Does the district ensure that the Category 2 assessments are valid and reliable measures? Are SLG goals tied to academic content standards/CCSS? Does the district differentiate SLG goals for other central office administrators? INDICATOR Insufficient Progressing Sufficient Evidence A1.7 Administrators are selected based upon their depth of knowledge and demonstrated expertise and are assigned based upon the subject matter knowledge, grade‐level experience, and other requisite experience required to accurately use specific evaluation instruments. There is little or no evidence that the district selects evaluators who meet clear criteria that incorporate the subject matter knowledge, grade‐level experience, and any other requisite skills needed to make accurate judgments for specific evaluation instruments. The district selects evaluators the majority of whom meet clear criteria that incorporate the subject matter knowledge, grade‐level experience, and other requisite skills needed to make accurate judgments for specific evaluation instruments. The district selects evaluators who meet clear criteria that incorporate the subject matter knowledge, grade‐level experience, and any other requisite skills needed to make accurate judgments for specific evaluation instruments. Guiding Questions 1.7: Who conducts observations and how are they trained? Who conducts the artifact review? How are reviewers selected and trained? Insufficient Progressing Sufficient Evidence
cycle (one- or two-year). Administrators on a two-year cycle receive on-going feedback in the year. Evaluation systems differentiate procedures based on the level of an administrator’s experience. on these cycles is determined. In two-year evaluation cycles, there is little or no evidence of formal and informal measures that assure administrators in non‐summative evaluation years continue to demonstrate effective performance and are progressing on meeting professional expectations. The evaluation system provides little or no differentiation for administrators who are new to the profession, new to the district or who are new to a role category. on these cycles is determined, but it is unclear or incomplete. In two-year evaluation cycles, there are informal measures that assure administrators continue to demonstrate effective performance and are progressing on meeting professional expectations, but no formal measures. The district evaluation system differentiates support that recognizes the needs of new administrators. administrator placement on these cycles is determined. In two‐year evaluation cycles, there are formal and informal measures that assure administrators continue to demonstrate effective performance and are progressing on meeting professional expectations. The district evaluation system differentiates support that recognizes the needs of new administrators and those administrators whose roles have changed. Guiding Questions 2.3: How does the evaluation and support system differentiate based upon experience, assignment, and prior evaluations (e.g., number of observations, formal or informal, announced or unannounced, specifics of support – team or individual mentor, self-directed or supervisor directed)? INDICATOR Insufficient Progressing Sufficient Evidence A2.4 The district has a process in place to determine an administrator’s summative evaluation rating based on the Oregon Matrix Model for Educator Summative Evaluations which includes: professional practice and professional responsibilities; and student learning and growth as a significant factor. There is little or no evidence that the combination of evaluation from these three areas is used to determine the administrator’s summative rating aligned to the Oregon Matrix. The district is developing their summative model which combines evaluations from these three areas to determine the administrator’s summative rating aligned to the Oregon Matrix requirements. The combination of evaluation from these three areas is used to determine the administrator teacher’s summative rating aligned to the Oregon Matrix requirements. Guiding Questions 2.4: What is the district’s plan to incorporate the Oregon Matrix summative model into their evaluation system?