Oregon Matrix Model

Oregon’s Requirements for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems

The new Oregon Matrix Model is unique to Oregon and has been designed and piloted by educators in school districts across the state.  The decision to adopt one model for integrating student learning and growth in teacher and administrative evaluations came as a result of the piloting process in local districts.   The Oregon Matrix Model --piloted with our locals in Ashland, Beaverton, Oregon City, North Clackamas, and South Lane -- is unique nationally.  If approved, Oregon will join states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island, in using a matrix approach, rather than a percentage formula.

After the last two years of piloting summative evaluation models in school districts across Oregon, ODE has worked with their partners and educators to finalize their ESEA Waiver application. In the state’s application, to be submitted on May 1 as required by our ESEA Waiver application, the Oregon Matrix Model was chosen as the final summative model that all Oregon school districts will use in their teacher and administrator evaluations.

The matrix model is a far cry from percentage models adopted by other states that put a heavy emphasis and fixed weight on student growth.   The Feds have favored a percentage formula, where student summative assessment (OAKS/SBAC), must be weighted between 20-50% or higher in an individual’s evaluation.   After discussion and input from pilot districts and state partners, the Oregon Matrix Model was the clear choice.  This does not change the state evaluation framework that has guided the development of local evaluation systems.

View the Oregon Matrix Model here.

Here are some basic highlights:

  • The matrix is used to find a professional growth plan and summative performance level for every educator in Oregon.
  • The new system combines three components: professional practice (the work educators do each day), professional responsibility (the parts of our work that are about seeking continued growth, communication, and collaboration with colleagues), and a growth measure of student learning over time.

Some other specifics on the matrix:

  • In a two-year evaluation cycle, an educator writes two Student Learning and Growth Goals per year - four goals total for the cycle. Educators will get to bring their two strongest goals forward to be part of the summative evaluation.
  • Where there are inconsistencies between the Professional Rubric and the Student Learning and Growth Goals, there are mandated inquiry processes that must be followed prior to any summative decisions being made by the evaluator.
  • Student Learning and Growth goals, based on multiple measures of student learning, will be a part of determining each educator’s professional growth plan and summative performance level.

Next steps:

  • ODE has made clear that they are not requiring nor do they believe that an educator’s final summative performance level (1-4) should be the defining factor in personnel decisions.
  • Local collaborative design teams will inform and local board policy will describe how an educator’s evaluation will inform personnel decisions, but it does not have to hinge on the final summative performance level.
  • ODE will be seeking feedback on the Matrix model from educators in the field. We will make sure you get access to these feedback opportunities, so stay tuned for future communications from the Center for Great Public Schools.
  • OEA will be holding professional development opportunities on how to utilize the matrix within your evaluation system at Summer Leadership Conference (what is common amongst all districts, what you can customize locally, etc.), and CGPS will be happy to come to your UniServ meetings to help local leaders understand the model.
  • The Oregon Matrix Model is important because it is a required part of Oregon’s ESEA Waiver application, due to US Department of Education by May 1st.

Thank you to all the educators who participated in the design and pilot processes at the state level and in your districts. Your participation and expert voice helped Oregon develop a model that deemphasizes high-stakes, standardized testing and put the focus back where it should be – supporting, improving and acknowledging professional practice in our schools.