ESB Recommendations

Key Recommendations:

Revise the OTES rubric based on the identified concerns of the ESB with the support of external expert(s) and ESB guidance.

• Improve clarity in the distinctions between performance levels.
• Embed student growth indicators into the rubric .
• Streamline the rubric to clarify descriptors and reduce redundancy (especially language around differentiation).

Rationale:

• The ESB has indicated that although many educators across Ohio have expressed commitment to the rubric and see its value in improving educator practice, making specific revisions to the rubric will improve its efficacy and reframe the evaluation system as a process focused on professional growth.
• These rubric revisions will help evaluators provide teachers with more specific, useful, and relevant feedback, strengthen opportunities for professional conversations, and enhance professional development planning.

ORC Language:

3319.112

(B) For purposes of the framework adopted under this section, the state board also shall do the following:

(1) Revise, as necessary, specific standards and criteria that distinguish between the following levels of performance for teachers and principals for the purpose of assigning ratings on the evaluations conducted under sections 3311.80, 3311.84, 3319.02, and 3319.111 of the Revised Code:

(a) Accomplished;

(b) Skilled;

(c) Developing;

(d) Ineffective.

Key Recommendations:

Embed the student growth measures included in the current evaluation framework as sources of evidence within the rubric indicators in five of the ten specific domains in the OTES rubric:

• Knowledge of students
• Differentiation
• Assessment of student learning
• Assessment data
• Professional responsibility

By embedding student achievement and growth measures as evidence in the OTES rubric, the evaluation system would no longer include student growth as a separate, weighted component rating.

Because both student academic achievement and growth data, along with professional practice measures, would be included in the OTES rubric, final summative ratings would be calculated using the revised OTES rubric.

The revised OTES rubric will be reviewed holistically.

Teachers will use available high-quality data illustrating student growth and achievement as evidence for specific indicators in the OTES rubric.

ODE is charged with creating criteria defining “high-quality student learning data,” which will be outlined in guidance and training materials.

Rationale:

• By embedding student academic growth and achievement measures in the OTES rubric, the evaluation system will continue to emphasize the importance of a teacher’s impact on student learning .
• Modifying the way in which student academic growth and achievement data are included in teacher evaluations will allow teachers and evaluators to focus evaluation conversations around accountability, inquiry, data-driven instruction, and professional growth.
• Allowing teachers to demonstrate effective practice through both the process of using student achievement and growth data and the outcomes highlighted through student achievement and growth data will provide a clearer picture of how teachers use data in ways that improve both instruction and student learning.
• High-quality data are important to help ensure that student growth and achievement measures used as evidence of teacher performance accurately capture student learning and promote effective teaching.

ORC Language:

3319.112

(A)(6) Uses at least two measures of high-quality student data to provide evidence of student learning attributable to the teacher being evaluated. The state board shall define "high-quality student data" for this purpose. When applicable to the grade level or subject area taught by a teacher, high-quality student data shall include the value-added progress dimension established under section 3302.021 of the Revised Code, but the teacher or evaluator shall use at least one other measure of high- quality student data to demonstrate student learning. In accordance with the guidance described in division (D)(3) of this section, high-quality student data may be used as evidence in any component of the evaluation related to the following:

(a) Knowledge of the students to whom the teacher provides instruction;

(b) The teacher's use of differentiated instructional practices based on the needs or abilities of individual students;

(c) Assessment of student learning;

(d) The teacher's use of assessment data;

(e) Professional responsibility and growth.

Key Recommendations:

Remove the use of shared attribution in calculating teacher evaluation ratings.

Rationale:

• Shared attribution does not accurately measure individual teacher performance or student growth because the measure uses assessments for a cohort of students that the educator does not teach.
• This measure did not encourage collaboration across educators as intended.
• By embedding student growth measures within the revised rubric, OTES places a greater focus on a teacher’s individual performance on improving student learning.
• Shared attribution would not be a valid source of evidence for an individual teacher’s performance or provide relevant data for an evaluator to provide feedback focused on individual improvement.

ORC Language:

3319.112

(A)(7) Prohibits the shared attribution of student performance data among all teachers in a district, building, grade, content area, or other group.

Key Recommendations:

Remove the alternative framework as a district option in teacher evaluation.

In lieu of its removal, the alternative framework components, as currently defined by ODE (student portfolios, student surveys, peer review, self-evaluation, district-determined measures), will remain as optional sources of evidence of teacher effectiveness within the revised rubric.

Rationale:

• By embedding student academic growth and achievement as required indicators and evidence within the revised rubric, this separate alternative framework is no longer needed.
• Districts still maintain the flexibility to use any of the alternative components as optional sources of evidence within the revised OTES rubric.

Key Recommendations:

Essential components of the evaluation remain but are adjusted to meet teacher needs:

• Formal holistic observations: Examine holistically/comprehensively all areas of the rubric and conducted for an entire class period, lesson, or minimum 30 minutes.
• Walkthroughs: Focus on gathering evidence on specific identified areas of improvement or growth and conducted for less than 30 minutes.
• Formal focused observations: Focus on gathering evidence on specific identified areas of improvement or growth (and evidence for other indicators if appropriate) and conducted for an entire class period, lesson, or minimum 30 minutes.
• Summative conference: Focus the summative conference at the end of the year so teachers have a conversation around all evidence collected across the year.

A formal holistic observation would be announced and conducted at the beginning of the year (first semester). The pre-observation conference is optional, but a post-observation conference is required during the first semester.

Walkthroughs (or focused observations) will occur thereafter to focus on specific area(s) needing support.

For teachers on the full evaluation cycle, a formal focused observation (announced or unannounced, based on local decision, and the areas of focus) is conducted in the second semester.

Rationale:

• By ensuring teachers and evaluators to focus the walkthroughs and second formal observation on identified areas for professional growth, the process further promotes OTES as a system focused on improving practice and emphasizing the importance of professional growth plans.
• This approach will streamline the evaluation process for educators by focusing on identified areas in need of improvement.

Key Recommendations:

The ESB recommends maintaining the frequency of full evaluations for teachers rated Accomplished (a full evaluation once every three years) or Skilled (a full evaluation once every two years).

The ESB recommends adjusting the process during the years in between full evaluations.

Teachers rated Accomplished will submit a teacher-directed professional growth plan to an evaluator chosen by the Accomplished teacher.

Teachers rated Skilled must develop a professional growth plan (PGP) in collaboration with the evaluator, focusing on specific areas as outlined in observations and the evaluation.

For both Accomplished and Skilled teachers, there will be one required conference each school year in which the teacher and evaluator discuss goal progress.

Teachers must demonstrate professional growth and/or progress towards the goals included in the PGP.

Rationale:

• Requiring a professional growth plan focused on specific areas of growth and a conference allows Accomplished and Skilled teachers to receive feedback and more opportunities to continue to grow as professionals.
• The intent of the revised process is to promote continuous improvement and help teachers reflect on their own individual progress toward their PGP goals.

ORC Language:

3319.111 (C): (2 (a) The board may evaluate each teacher who received a rating of accomplished on the teacher's most recent evaluation conducted under this section once every three school years, so long as the teacher submits a self-directed professional growth plan to the evaluator that focuses on specific areas identified in the observations and evaluation and the evaluator determines that the teacher is making progress on that plan. (3) In any year that a teacher is not formally evaluated pursuant to division (C) of this section as a result of receiving a rating of accomplished or skilled on the teacher's most recent evaluation, an individual qualified to evaluate a teacher under division (D) of this section shall conduct at least one observation of the teacher and hold at least one conference with the teacher. The conference shall include a discussion of progress on the teacher's professional growth plan

3319.111 (C): (2)(b) The board may evaluate each teacher who received a rating of skilled on the teacher's most recent evaluation conducted under this section once every two years, so long as the teacher and evaluator jointly develop a professional growth plan for the teacher that focuses on specific areas identified in the observations and evaluation and the evaluator determines that the teacher is making progress on that plan. (3) In any year that a teacher is not formally evaluated pursuant to division (C) of this section as a result of receiving a rating of accomplished or skilled on the teacher's most recent evaluation, an individual qualified to evaluate a teacher under division (D) of this section shall conduct at least one observation of the teacher and hold at least one conference with the teacher. The conference shall include a discussion of progress on the teacher's professional growth plan .