Dr. David Grace
dfgrace@eiu.edu
Dr. Nick Osborne
nrosborne@eiu.edu
Dr. John Dively
jdively@eiu.edu
Dr. Marleis Trover
matrover@eiu.edu
February 12, 2014
Overview
• Introduction
• District Efforts
•
Joint Committees
•
Professional Practice
•
Growth Model
Lessons Learned to Date
•
• EIU EDL Efforts
• Questions
Illinois General Assembly
Performance Evaluation Reform Act
(PERA) SB 315 January 13, 2010
Public Act 096-0861 was signed into law
by Governor Quinn on January 15, 2010.
To Be Eligible for Race To The Top
Senate Bill 7
June 23, 2011
•Incorporated PERA student growth
requirements into various personnel
processes—(Tenure, RIF, Remediation,
Termination)
•Rules and regulations finally established in
May 2012
High Stakes
Teacher Evaluations
70% Professional Practice
30% Student Growth
*(50% State Default)
Tenure, RIF and Recall,
Remediation, Revocation,
Suspension
Illinois Framework for Teacher Performance Evaluation
6
WHAT ARE THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR
SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND
HOW ARE THEY
RESPONDING?
2010 PERA LAW MANDATES MAJOR CHANGES
 The PERA Law requires all school districts to
design and implement a new performance
evaluation system or default to a state developed
performance evaluation system.
 The new system must assess professional
practice as well as incorporate significant
measures of student growth.
 The new system must incorporate consistent
standards and provide clearer more objective
feedback.
2010 PERA LAW MANDATES MAJOR CHANGES
 The new system must lead to improved professional
development.
 The new system must incorporate multiple metrics
to measure student growth.
 The main focus of the PERA Law is to create a new
system focused on improving student learning.
 The PERA Law also requires the development of a
Joint Committee.
PERA EVALUATION SYSTEM
STATE
DEFAULT
OR
DISTRICT
DESIGNED
PERA EVALUATION SYSTEM
PRACTICE
75% - 70% - DISTRICT
50% - STATE DEFAULT
STUDENT
GROWTH
25% - 30% - DISTRICT
50% - STATE DEFAULT
2010 PERA LAW : JOINT COMMITTEE
 PERA LAW requires that the new comprehensive
performance evaluation system must be designed and
developed by a Joint Committee of the school
administration and the teacher union.
 The Joint Committee must reach an agreement on the
design of the new performance evaluation plan
incorporating a means to measure both teacher practice
and student growth.
 PERA LAW defines Student Growth as a demonstrable
change in a student’s or group of students’ knowledge or
skill, as evidenced by gain and/or attainment on two or
more assessments, between two of more points in time. .
2010 PERA LAW : JOINT COMMITTEE
 The “Joint Committee” is a committee composed of equal
representation selected by the district and its teachers or, where
applicable, the exclusive bargaining representative of its teachers.
 The “Joint Committee” shall have the duties regarding the
establishment of a performance evaluation plan that incorporates
data and indicators of student growth as a significant factor in
rating teacher performance and addresses professional practice.
2010 PERA LAW : JOINT COMMITTEE
Under statute, this committee has one
major job:
 Determine the student growth component to incorporate into the
teacher evaluation plan for the school district for each subject
area pursuant to the District Requirements as listed previously.
 However in doing so, the committee will need to examine:
 What data is the District collecting?
 What data does the District need to collect?
 Where is the data being stored?
 What growth measures are to be used?
 What percentages should be utilized in calculating the
performance rating ?
 Other statutory and regulatory requirements
2010 PERA LAW : JOINT COMMITTEE
 The PERA Joint Committee must come to a consensus of
incorporating student growth within 180 days of their first
formal meeting.
 If the “Formal” Joint Committee fails to reach an agreement on
the design and development of the Performance Evaluation
Model within the 180 day time frame they will be required to
default to the portion of the State Model for Performance
Evaluation that they were unable to reach agreement.
 School districts are presently engaging in “Informal” Joint
Committee Meetings to avoid triggering the 180 day time frame.
2010 PERA LAW : JOINT COMMITTEE
Teachers : Student Growth
 Determine the categories of teachers who have neither a Type I nor
a Type II assessment available.
 For teachers without a Type I or II assessment, the evaluation plan
must include a minimum of two Type III assessments.
 Set student growth expectations that are consistent with the
assessment and model selected.
 Develop a uniform process for collective formative student learning
data at the midpoint of the evaluation cycle that will assess
progress and inform instructional adjustments but will not be
included in the student growth scores.
 Discuss how student characteristics are used in the measurement
model.
Teachers : Student Growth
 Select a measurement model for each assessment that
includes multiple data points.
 Identify at least one Type III assessment that will be used to
measure student growth for each category of teacher
 State the general nature of any Type III assessment that will
be used to measure student growth for each category of
teacher.
 Describe the process and criteria that the qualified
evaluator and teacher will use to identify or develop the
specific Type III assessment to be used.
Teachers : Student Growth
 “Demonstrable change in a student’s learning between two or
more points in time”
 Need data from at least 2 assessments:
 At least one Type III assessment
 And at least one Type I or II assessment (PREFERABLY not
ISAT or PSAE)
 Or two Type III assessments if no Type I or II are available
 District PERA joint committee decides metrics and targets,
including for different student groups (ELL, etc.)
2010 PERA LAW : JOINT COMMITTEE
 Identify at least one Type III assessment that will be
used to measure student growth for each category of
teacher
 State the general nature of any Type III assessment
that will be used to measure student growth for each
category of teacher.
 Describe the process and criteria that the qualified
evaluator and teacher will use to identify or develop
the specific Type III assessment to be used.
Mandated Teacher Evaluation Training
 Understand Teacher Performance Aligned to Professional Practice




in the teacher evaluation process and evaluator qualifications (Module 1Teacher Evaluator Training)
Validate Knowledge and Skills when using professional standards to
collect and measure evidence of teaching practice (Module 2)
Collaborate using observation and conversation to provide feedback to
teachers on their planning, classroom environment, and instructional
teaching practices (Module 3)
Measure, Evaluate and Reflect in order to determine ratings for all
teachers and when appropriate, develop improvement plans that address
teaching at the “needs improvement” or unsatisfactory” levels (Module 4)
Understand Teacher Performance Aligned to Student Growth in the
teacher evaluation process and evaluator qualifications (requirement to
take Module 5 dependent upon PERA Implementation Date)
21
What are the
Requirements for School
Districts and How are they
Responding?
Dr. Osborne
Dr. Grace
2010 PERA LAW
Mandated Major Changes
PERA requires districts to design and implement performance
evaluation systems that assess professional practice as well
as incorporate measures of student growth.
Consistent standards, clearer more objective feedback
Improved professional development
Multiple measures of student growth
Improved student learning
Principals & Teachers: Two choices for districts:
Use General Rules to create your own system or use State
Model (all or parts)
District Plan/Joint Committee
 Under PERA and Illinois Administrative Code Part 50,
school districts and teachers unions must develop
comprehensive teacher evaluation plans which include
data and measures of student growth as a significant
part. The incorporation of student growth as a
significant factor should be done in cooperation with
the District’s SB 315 Joint Committee.
 Student Growth is defined as a demonstrable change in
a student’s or group of students’ knowledge or skill, as
evidenced by gain and/or attainment on two or more
assessments, between two of more points in time.
 Significant Part is determined to be 25% for the first
two years and 30% thereafter.
District Plan/Joint Committee
 The Joint Committee must identify two
assessment types to measure student growth
for each category of teachers as well as one or
more measurement models that use multiple
data points to determine student growth using
the selected assessments.
 Measurement Model is defined as the process
in which two or more assessment scores are
analyzed to identify a change in a student’s
knowledge or skills over time.
District Plan/Joint Committee
 PERA and Regulations Requirements :
 Select a measurement model for each assessment that includes
multiple data points.
 Identify at least one Type III assessment that will be used to
measure student growth for each category of teacher
 State the general nature of any Type III assessment that will be
used to measure student growth for each category of teacher.
Describe the process and criteria that the qualified evaluator
and teacher will use to identify or develop the specific Type III
assessment to be used.
PERA and the Joint Committee Design
Stage I: Educator system design
 Design an educator practice model (evaluation tool and processes).
 Design a plan to support professional growth of all educators and
ensure that the professional development design is aligned with the
educator evaluation system.
 Train evaluators on educator practice model.
 Determine plan to ensure inter-rater reliability and a mechanism for
educators to challenge ratings.
 Train certified staff on educator practice model.
 Provide implementation support.
PERA and the Joint Committee Design
Stage II: Student growth measures and implementation of evaluation
system
 Facilitate early implementation of educator practice model
(evaluation tool and processes).
 Identify, design, and/or develop student growth measures
aligned with curriculum and standards. If assessments need to
be developed create an assessment committee comprised of
educators in every non-tested grade and subject. These may
be multiple committees.
 The Joint Committee may oversee the work of these
committees.
 Design student growth measures.
 Train evaluators on student growth measures.
 Train certified staff on student growth measures.
 Plan for and provide implementation support.
PERA and the Joint Committee Design
 Stage III: Full implementation
Create an implementation plan. The elements of
this plan should address the:
 design,
 implementation,
 and operation of the system across all schools.
Facilitate full implementation of the educator
evaluation system with student growth
measures…this should include:
 monitoring school progress in implementing the evaluation
system.
 Provide implementation support and resources to schools as
they operate the evaluation system.
Types of Growth Models
30
What are ways to measure growth? – Pg. 9
(ITED Chapter 2B, Appendix 3)
Growth Model
Value-Tables
Simple Growth
Description
•
•
Benefits
Compares attainment each •
year, examining whether a
student met or exceeded
•
standards from one grade
level to the next
Compares post-test
performance to pre-test
performance to measure
growth
•
•
Adjusted Growth
•
Sets an expected growth
•
target based upon pre-test
performance and measures
growth based upon that
•
target
Value-Added
•
Compares student’s
attainment over time,
controlling for selected
factors
•
•
•
Student Learning
Objectives
•
A process for using baseline •
data to set growth targets
for students
•
Easy to calculate with certain
assessments
Easy to communicate to
teachers
Drawbacks
District Implementation
Requirements
•
Does not separate teacher’s
effect on student growth from
other factors
Can focus on “bubble kids”
Does not account for growth
within proficiency levels
•
Does not separate teacher’s
effect on student growth from
student-level factors
Easy to draw incorrect
conclusions based on test scale
instability
Does not separate teacher’s
effect on student growth from
factors (e.g. SES)
Requires large student
populations
Often requires certain
assessments (NWEA MAP,
Scantron Performance Series)
Requires the most data and
most complex modeling
Requires data team or outside
entity to collect and analyze
data
Requires several years of data
Can be easy to game without
certain parameters
Results are not comparable if
•
•
•
Easy to calculate
•
Easy to communicate to
teachers and other stakeholders
•
Takes a student’s starting point •
into account when calculating
growth over a year
More comprehensive than
•
simple growth
•
Comprehensive measure
Accurately separates effect of
educator on student growth
from other factors
Apples to apples comparison
Can be used with any
assessment type
Can be used with any
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintain data from two sets of
time
May require creation of
“categories”
Can be used with Type I , Type
II, or Type III (with proficiency
levels)
Maintain data from two points
in time, subtract post from pre
test
Any Type I , Type II, or Type III
Best for Type II or III
•
•
Statistical reference group data
Some Type I or Type II (need
comparison data), such as
Scantron Performance Series,
NWEA MAP, EPAS
•
Research team/statistical
capacity
Statistical reference group score
and demographic data
Some Type I or Type II (with
statistical model)
District should set parameters
for educators to follow when
31
designing SLOs to ensure
•
•
•
Sandoval CUSD 501 Student Learning Objective Framework
Baseline
Population
Objective
Rationale
Strategies
Assessment
What does the
data show you
about students’
starting points?
Who are you going
to include in this
objective?
What will students
learn?
Why did you choose
this objective?
What methods will you
use to accomplish this
objective?
How will you
measure the
outcome of the
objective?
Targeted
TargetedGrowth
Growth
Criteria
 Uses allowable
data to drive
instruction and set
growth targets
 Is measureable
 Targets specific
academic
concepts, skills, or
behaviors based
upon approved
assessment
objectives and
student needs
 90% attendance is
assumed
 Pre-test data
available for each
student included
 Exceptions are
allowed, based upon
evaluator approval
 Rigorous
 Targets specific
academic concepts,
skills, and behaviors
based on the CCSS or
district curriculum,
where available
 Use baseline data to
guide selection and
instruction
 Targets year-long,
semester-long, or
quarter-long
concepts, skills, or
behaviors
 Is measureable
 Collaboration
required
 Aligns with school
and district
improvement plans
 Aligns with teaching
strategies and
learning content
 Classroom data is
reviewed for areas of
strengths and needs
by student group,
subject area,
concepts, skills, and
behavior
 Identifies the model
of instruction or key
strategies to be used
 Is appropriate for
learning content and
skill level observed in
assessment data
provided throughout
the year
 Follows researchbased best practices
 Administered in a
consistent manner
and data is secure
 Applicable to the
purpose of the class
and reflective of the
skills students have
the opportunity to
develop
 Produces timely and
useful data
 Standardized; has the
same content,
administration, and
results reporting for
all students
 Aligned with state or
district standards
 Maximum of 5 tiers
 Expressed in whole
numbers
 Encourage collaboration,
but teachers can set
distinct targets
 Covers 75% of population
 Based upon preassessment data
 Allowable baseline data
can include: assessment
tools, formative
assessments, previous
student grades, previous
achievement data,
attendance data, student
criteria
 Students can uphold high
achievement
 Quantifiable goals
Guiding
Question
s
 How did students
perform on the
pre-assessment?
 What allowable
data have you
considered?
 What student
needs are
identified using
the baseline data?
 What student groups
are targeted?
 What are the
students’ social and
cultural strengths
and/or needs?
 What general
content areas are
targeted?
 Is the content
scaffolded and
rigorous?
 How is the content
connected to the
CCSS or district
curriculum?
 How is the baseline
data used to inform
 What strengths and
needs were
identified?
 Based upon what
data?
 How will you
differentiate
instruction?
 What key strategies
will be used?
 What assessment
will be used to
measure whether
students met the
objective?
 What type of
assessment (Type I,
II, and III)?
 How do you know
the assessments are
consistently
administered?
 What is the growth
target?
 How was the target
determined?
 What is the percentage of
students who will
perform at the target
level?
 Are you using any tiers? If
so, what data supports
this?
What is your goal for
student achievement?
Growth Factor Assessments
Under the rules, every teacher’s evaluation
growth factor will be judged by at least one
Type I or Type II and one Type III
assessment. If no Type I or II assessment is
appropriate, then two Type III assessments
will be used.
23 Ill. Admin. Code pt. 110 b, (2012).
33
District Plan Requirements
• PERA and Regulations Requirements:
• Determine the categories of teachers who have neither
a Type I nor a Type II assessment available. For
teachers without a Type I or II assessment, the
evaluation plan must include a minimum of two Type III
assessments.
• Set student growth expectations that are consistent
with the assessment and model selected.
• Develop a uniform process for collective formative
student learning data at the midpoint of the evaluation
cycle that will assess progress and inform instructional
adjustments but will not be included in the student
growth scores.
• Discuss how student characteristics are used in the
measurement model.
Student Growth Metric Types
Type I
Assessments
• Common and comparable across contexts, widely
administered (nationally normed) assessments.
Examples: PARCC, NWEA, Scantron, Star Reading;
At least one metric from Type I or II
Type II
Assessments
• Any assessment adopted or approved by the district
and given by teacher(s) across a grade/subject.
Examples: common assessments, criterionreferenced tests, textbook assessments; At least one
metric from Type I or II
Type III
Assessments
• Any assessment, aligned with curriculum, decided
upon between teacher and evaluator as a measure of
student learning. Examples: teacher-created
assessments, student work samples, performance
assessments; At least one metric from Type III
District Plan Requirements
• Assessment Type Definition
• Type I
• A reliable assessment that measures a
certain group or subset of students in the
same manner with the same potential
assessment items, is scored by a nondistrict entity, and is administered either
statewide or beyond Illinois.
• Examples include assessments available
from NWEA, Scantron, Star Reading, the
College Board’s SAT, Advanced Placement
or International Baccalaureate exams, or
ACT’s EPAS (Educational Planning and
Assessment System)
District Plan Requirements
• Assessment Type Definition
• Type II
• Any assessment developed or adopted and
approved for use by the school district and
used on a district-wide basis by all teachers in
a given grade or subject area.
• Examples include collaboratively developed
common assessments, curriculum tests and
assessments designed by textbook publishers.
District Plan Requirements
• Assessment Type Definition
• Type III
• Any assessment that is rigorous, that is aligned to the
course curriculum, and that the qualified evaluator
and teacher determine measures student learning in
that course.
• Examples include teacher-created assessments,
assessments designed by textbook publishers,
student work samples or portfolios, assessments of
student performance, and assessments designed by
staff who are subject or grade-level experts that are
administered commonly across a given grade or
subjects.
• Type I and II assessments also may be considered
Type III if they align to the curriculum and are
capable of measuring student learning in the subject.
Grade and/or Subject
Assessment A
Middle School Science- Grade 7 and
District-developed test
8
Middle School Social Studies- Grade
District- developed test
7 and 8
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Middle School Physical Education
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Middle School Music
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Other Middle School Specials
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Special Education Teachers
General education assessment
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Special Education Teachers of
Students who do not take traditional
assessments
See the additional guidance for
Special Education Teachers section
in this document
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
English as a Second Language
Teachers
MODEL Assessment
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Library Coordinator
SRI- 20%
Librarians
SRI- 20%
MAPS Coordinator
SRI/SMI- 10%
Curriculum Coordinator- English
Language Arts, Mathematics,
Science and Social Studies, Inquiry
Science
SRI/SMI- 20%
Type III, teacher-selected, with
SLO- 10%
Instructional Technology Coaches
SRI/SMI- 10%
Type III, teacher-selected, with
SLO- 20%
Instructional Coaches
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
School Improvement Coordinator
SRI/SMI
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
based on district assessmentsmathematics and English Language
Arts
Gifted Coordinator
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Title I Reading
Gates- 15%
Type III, teacher-selected, with
SLO- 15%
Assessment B
Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO
Type III, teacher-selected, with
SLO- 10%
Type III, teacher-selected, with
SLO- 10%
Type III, teacher-selected, with
SLO- 20%
39
“By no later than the applicable
implementation date, each school district
shall, in good faith cooperation with its
teachers or, where applicable, the exclusive
bargaining representatives of its teachers
incorporate the use of data and indicators
on student growth as a significant factor in
rating teaching performance into its
evaluation plan for all teachers….” 105 ILCS
5/24A-4b.
40
Timeline of Implementation
41
How has EIU EDL
Responded?
Dr. Trover
What did we do to prepare our candidates for
changes in evaluation mandates?
Four Action Steps
1. Reviewed the Research
2. Trained and Sought Evaluation Certification
3. Reviewed (ITED) Illinois Teacher Evaluation
Development Plan
4. Reviewed Course Syllabi, Content, Activities
and Assessments and Refined Courses to
Incorporate Professional Practice and
Growth Model Content, Activities and
Assessments.
43
The first step that the Faculty of EIU took was to broaden its
awareness of the research in the areas of outcomes based
teacher and principal evaluation.
 In addition to readings in the area of evaluation research, the
EIU Faculty attended workshops by the Illinois Performance
Evaluation Advisory Committee (PEAC). This advisory group
offered meetings across the state.
 Additional awareness and understanding opportunities were
provided during the meetings of the Illinois Council of
Professors of Educational Administration (ICPEA), the Illinois
Association of School Administrators (IASA), the Illinois
Principals Association (IPA), the Illinois Association of School
Boards (IASB) and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE).
44
The second step was to complete the Teacher and Principal State
Training and Tests to be certified as Teacher and Principal
Evaluators.
Mandated Teacher Evaluation Training
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Understand Teacher Performance Aligned to Professional Practice in the
teacher evaluation process and evaluator qualifications (Module 1-Teacher
Evaluator Training)
Validate Knowledge and Skills when using professional standards to collect and
measure evidence of teaching practice (Module 2)
Collaborate using observation and conversation to provide feedback to
teachers on their planning, classroom environment, and instructional teaching
practices (Module 3)
Measure, Evaluate and Reflect in order to determine ratings for all teachers
and when appropriate, develop improvement plans that address teaching at the
“needs improvement” or unsatisfactory” levels (Module 4)
Understand Teacher Performance Aligned to Student Growth in the
teacher evaluation process and evaluator qualifications (requirement to take
Module 5 dependent upon PERA Implementation Date)
45
The third step was the review the Illinois Teacher Evaluation
Development (ITED) Practices and Procedures for districts to
use to incorporate professional practice and growth models
into their teacher evaluation documents.
ITED Document
Chapter 1-Critical First Steps,
Chapter 2-Developing an Educator Practice System
and a Student Growth Plan
Chapter 3-Preparing your System for the New
Evaluation Plan
Chapter 4-Support the Professional Learning of
Educators
Chapter 5-Providing Meaningful Information for
Human Resources Decision-making.
46
The fourth step in the plan was to review our course materials,
activities and refine our courses to incorporate professional
practice and growth model content.
 Supervision, Principalship, Superintendency and Planning
and Evaluation Courses were reviewed and refined to
incorporate professional practice and growth model content a
into our activities and assessments.
 EDL Department sponsored an Administrator Academy
Workshop for our Regional Leadership Teams of
Administrators and Teachers.
 The Workshop highlighted Professional Practice and Growth Model
Incorporation into district teacher evaluation documents.
 The workshop was delivered by the Consortia for Educational Change in
Partnership with our Leadership Department and the Area Regional Offices
of Education.
 Our service will continue as we assist district teams through
the preparation of future administrators and staff.
47
Questions
48