Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) Student Growth No Stakes Pilot for CTE Teachers PRESENTED BY: JEN NEWENDYKE, SYSTEM DIRECTOR, EFE #220, ELIZABETH CHAMBERS, HEALTH OCCUPATIONS COORDINATOR/INSTRUCTOR & CRAIG DANEKAS, COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR

Inquiry  Understanding of PERA?  Level of district implementation?  Level of individual implementation?  Position on change curve, denial, anger, acceptance?

WHY?  January 2010: Illinois General Assembly passed Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA), signed by Governor Quinn  June 2011: Education Reform bill as a result of PERA, Senate bill 7, signed by Governor Quinn  May 2012: ISBE administrative rules “Part 50” take effect,  As a result, changed evaluation ratings from 3 to 4 ratings, adopted Danielson model, implemented pilot to incorporate students growth school year

DISCLAIMER  We do not have all the answers  We do not claim to have everything right  Our process is a result of numerous trainings and resources through Kids at the Core, ROE #8, professional development conferences, such as Connections Conference, self study of PERA and Senate Bill 7, and information provided by Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC)  We are giving an overview, some information on major steps along the way, but not all the detail

Instructional Design Process  Identify industry/content standards for CTE area Example: Illinois Occupational Skills Standards, Illinois Learning Standards, National Standards for FACS Ed  Prioritize standards given length of class, age of student, course objective  Deconstruct standards using “Unwrapping Standards Template” as adapted from Kids at the Core  Link standards to units of instruction  Develop learning goal based on essential skills “unwrapped” from the standards, use “Directions for Establishing a Learning Goal” as adapted for ROE#8 PD  Review currently used assessments, modify to suit goals in a pre-assessment, mid point check, and post assessment  Determine level of cognitive demand and link to standard for all assessment questions, use “Assessment Question/Task Standard Alignment with Complexity Analysis” as modified from Kids at the Core and ROE#8 PD resources.  Use “Checklist for Type 3 Assessment Approval” as a guide for quality & consistency

Computer Information Systems Instructional Design Example  Big Ideas  Importance  Content Standards  Deconstruct Standards  Modify Current Assessments  Link assessment, standards, level of cognitive demand  Pre-Assessment  SLO 

Health Occupations Instructional Design Process Example  Big Idea  Content Standards  Assessments  Student Data  Growth Objectives  Overall Reflection  Occupational Health Standards Link:  IDPH CNA Health Occupations Standards: content/uploads/2013/01/BNATP-Model-Program-2013.pdf content/uploads/2013/01/BNATP-Model-Program-2013.pdf

Informal Joint Committee Decisions  What SLO Template?  How will baseline data be collected?  Who approves teacher SLO’s?  How many SLO’s (2 required)?  What is interval of instruction?  How are teachers to align assessments with standards, complexity?  Determine timelines for steps of SLO process.  How will target population be defined?  What measurement model?  What type of assessments will be used?  What does mid-point review look like?  Can a growth goal be changed at mid-point check?

SLO Framework & Rating Sheets as adapted from ROE#8 resources  SLO Framework includes all sign off steps  SLO scoring thresholds were agreed upon by informal joint committee and then formal joint committee, see “Determining Final Student Growth Rating”  Final Summative Rating chart developed back on examples and agreed upon by informal joint and then formal joint committee, see “Determining Final Summative Rating”

Informing Students  Teachers share how they approached process with students

Resources  

Contact Information  Jen Newendyke,  Craig Danekas,  Elizabeth Chambers,