ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm...
-
Upload
mabel-barnett -
Category
Documents
-
view
235 -
download
0
Transcript of ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm...
![Page 1: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ADMINISTRATOR
EVALUATION:Legal requirements after S.B. 290
Nancy Hungerford
The Hungerford Law Firm
Feb. 1 , 2013
![Page 2: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Before there was S.B. 290
• 1979: ORS 342.805 et seq., which applies to teachers and administrators (except superintendent) ORS 342.835: Probationary administrators may be
dismissed or nonrenewed for “any cause deemed in good faith sufficient” by the school board.
ORS 342.850: Establishes requirements of evaluation process, including “programs of assistance for improvement” to be developed “if one is needed to remedy” a deficiency
![Page 3: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Before S.B. 290
• Post-probationary administrators can be dismissed for any of the reasons listed in ORS 342.865, including inadequate performance.
• Post-probationary administrators were given “permanent status” and not subject to periodic contract renewal but were subject to dismissal at any time.
• Dismissed administrators could appeal to the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board.
![Page 4: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
After S.B. 880 in 1997
• Administrators are employed on three-year contracts. By Mar.15 of second year, the board either: Non-extends the contract “Rolls over” the contract for a new 3-year term Extends the contract for only one more year
• Non-extensions cannot be appealed to FDAB
• Administrators may be transferred to another administrative position without loss of pay
![Page 5: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
After S.B. 290 in 2013
• Local districts must adopt standards that mirror State Board-adopted (ISLLC-based) standards “customized” through “collaborative efforts”
• Administrators must be evaluated every year during probation and then every other year, using a four-level rating scale.
• Evaluation must be based on “multiple measures” that include goal-setting around “student learning and growth”
![Page 6: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Local “Collaborative Process”
*No prescribed membership of team Open
*Collaboration by administrators
with superintendent?
* OEA position: teachers included
* SB 290: Standards must be
“separately developed for
teachers and administrators”
![Page 7: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
“Musts” for Standards
*Must “take into consideration multiple measures of educator 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”
![Page 8: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
• Disagreement over “ownership” of student learning and growth.What if principal is in first year in the building?
What about District-level administrators below assistant superintendent?
• Disagreement over data to be used to measure “administrator’s impact on academic growth of all students”
• Does drop in test scores = unsatisfactory?
• Linked to success of teachers on their goals?If teachers average 2.75 on “student learning and growth” does principal score 2.75 automatically?
Potential Issues in Implementation
![Page 9: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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 and the “Framework”:
•Four-level rating scale?
•Annual goal-setting process (SMART goals) that includes at least two goals related to student learning?
•Administrator and evaluator select evidence of goal completion?
•Mid-year and end-of-year meeting over progress on student growth goals?
•Summative evaluation every year (probationary) and at least every two years (contract administrators).
![Page 10: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN
2. Compare your current standards of performance to ODE’s Educational Leader/Administrator Standards (OAR 581-022-1725)
•Visionary Leadership
• Instructional Improvement
• Effective Management
• Inclusive Practice
• Ethical Leadership
• Socio-Political Context
Option: Retain current standards but align to State standards
![Page 11: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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, superintendent, board members?
• 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
• “Pilot” implementation during 2013-14
![Page 12: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
S.B. 290 Action Plan
4. Provide for “multiple evidence-based measures to evaluate administrator 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.
![Page 13: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
S.B. 290 Action Plan
Evaluating “Professional Practice”:
*Observation, documentation and feedback360º feedback, surveys developed with staff, staff communication, teacher development, feedback to teachers
*Examination of Artifacts Handbooks, records of mentoring/coaching, teacher use of data, staff
meetings, teacher observations, teacher evaluations
![Page 14: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
S.B. 290 Action Plan
Evaluating Professional Responsibilities:*Administrator’s reflections and self-reports
*Professional goal-setting, school-wide goals
*Parent and community involvement
*School-wide budget
*Staff retention rate
*Collaborative leadership
![Page 15: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN
Develop at least two goals for “student academic growth and learning,” aligned with Achievement Compact indicators where applicable
• At least one goal must use state assessment as a measure (“e.g., building-level data on proficiency and growth in reading and math, including all subgroups”)
• Common national, regional, district-developed measures (e.g., ACT, AP, IB, DIBELS, C-PAS)
• Other school-wide or district-wide measures (Graduation rate, attendance rate, dropout rate, discipline data, college and career-readiness indicators)
![Page 16: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Target based on Achievement Compact
Target: Increase percentage of 9th-graders “on track”
GOAL: Increase from 50% to 60% students who have 6 or more credits at the end of 9th grade.
Target based on common national measure:
Target: Increase student participation/success on AP classes
GOAL: Increase from 5% to 20% percentage of minority students in grades 11-12 enrolled in AP classes and earning “3” or higher
Sample Student-Centered Goals
![Page 17: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
“School-based” student learning goals?
• “Number of suspensions and expulsions of H.S./M.S. minority students will decline from 50 to 35.
• “Participation of girls in athletics will increase from 25% to 35% of female H.S. students.
• “H.S. drama, speech, and music teams will increase number of students sent to state competition from __ to ___.”
![Page 18: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Designing Data Collection
The goal must be MEASURABLE so reliable EVIDENCE must be obtained through targeted DATA COLLECTION.
• Administrator suggests what evidence would be needed, how it might be collected
• Administrator designs data collection devices, summaries
• Set early deadline for submission of preliminary data
• Use staff, parent surveys?
• Plan for data that can be gathered
in observations of administrator.
![Page 19: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
S.B. 290 ACTION PLAN
6. Work to change the “culture” of evaluation
• What is meant by 2013-14 “piloting”?
• Group discussions of reliable “evidence” of student growth, experience of first year
• Use of data to focus evaluation efforts
• Identify administrator “inputs” that influence student “outputs”
![Page 21: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
• Build in peer, group assessment
• Establish accountability systems to require identification, remediation efforts
![Page 22: ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: Legal requirements after S.B. 290 Nancy Hungerford The Hungerford Law Firm Feb. 1, 2013.](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051215/56649e725503460f94b715b3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
What’s Next?
• Possible additional changes in OARs, Framework to retain NCLB waiver
• Possible legislative change in 2013?• Likely litigation over use of evaluations in
personnel decisions?• More opportunities for training, assistanceFor updates, call The Hungerford Law Firm at 503-781-
3458 or e-mail [email protected]