cycle (one- or two-year). on these cycles is determined. on these cycles is administrator placement on Administrators on a two-year determined, but it is unclear these cycles is determined. cycle receive on-going In two-year evaluation cycles, or incomplete. feedback in the there is little or no evidence of In two‐year evaluation year. formal and informal measures In two-year evaluation cycles, there are formal and that assure administrators in cycles, there are informal informal measures that Evaluation systems non‐summative evaluation measures that assure assure administrators differentiate procedures administrators continue to years continue to demonstrate continue to demonstrate based on the level of an effective performance and are demonstrate effective effective performance and administrator’s experience. progressing on meeting performance and are are progressing on meeting professional expectations. progressing on meeting professional expectations. professional expectations, The evaluation system provides The district evaluation system but no formal measures. little or no differentiation for differentiates support that administrators who are new to The district evaluation system recognizes the needs of new differentiates support that the profession, new to the administrators and those district or who are new to a role recognizes the needs of new administrators whose roles category. administrators. 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 There is little or no evidence The district is developing their The combination of evaluation process in place to determine that the combination of summative model which from these three areas is used to an administrator’s summative evaluation from these three combines evaluations from determine the administrator evaluation rating based on areas is used to determine the these three areas to determine teacher’s summative rating the Oregon Matrix Model for administrator’s summative the administrator’s summative aligned to the Oregon Matrix Educator Summative rating aligned to the Oregon rating aligned to the Oregon requirements. Evaluations which includes: Matrix. Matrix requirements. professional practice and professional responsibilities; and student learning and growth as a significant factor. Guiding Questions 2.4: What is the district’s plan to incorporate the Oregon Matrix summative model into their evaluation system?
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?
final-self-appraisal-tool.docx