Dr. David Grace Dr. Nick Osborne Dr. John Dively Dr. Marleis Trover 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 was signed into law by Governor Quinn on January 15, 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 DISTRICT DESIGNED OR

PERA EVALUATION SYSTEM PRACTICE STUDENT GROWTH 75% - 70% - DISTRICT 50% - STATE DEFAULT 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

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 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 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) 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 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.

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 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. District Plan/Joint Committee District Plan/Joint Committee

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. PERA and the Joint Committee Design

Types of Growth Models 30

What are ways to measure growth? – Pg. 9 (ITED Chapter 2B, Appendix 3) 31 Growth Model DescriptionBenefitsDrawbacks District Implementation Requirements Value-Tables Compares attainment each year, examining whether a student met or exceeded standards from one grade level to the next Easy to calculate with certain assessments Easy to communicate to teachers 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 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) Simple Growth Compares post-test performance to pre-test performance to measure growth Easy to calculate Easy to communicate to teachers and other stakeholders Does not separate teacher’s effect on student growth from student-level factors Easy to draw incorrect conclusions based on test scale instability 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 Adjusted Growth Sets an expected growth target based upon pre-test performance and measures growth based upon that target Takes a student’s starting point into account when calculating growth over a year More comprehensive than simple growth 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) Statistical reference group data Some Type I or Type II (need comparison data), such as Scantron Performance Series, NWEA MAP, EPAS Value-Added Compares student’s attainment over time, controlling for selected factors Comprehensive measure Accurately separates effect of educator on student growth from other factors Apples to apples comparison Requires the most data and most complex modeling Requires data team or outside entity to collect and analyze data Requires several years of data Research team/statistical capacity Statistical reference group score and demographic data Some Type I or Type II (with statistical model) Student Learning Objectives A process for using baseline data to set growth targets for students Can be used with any assessment type Can be used with any measurement model Can be uniquely tailored to each educator’s goals Can be easy to game without certain parameters Results are not comparable if individually created Time-consuming to develop the system District should set parameters for educators to follow when designing SLOs to ensure consistency and fairness Any Type I, Type II, or Type III

Sandoval CUSD 501 Student Learning Objective Framework Targeted Growth

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 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 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 I Assessments Any assessment adopted or approved by the district and given by teacher(s) across a grade/subject. Examples: common assessments, criterion-referenced tests, textbook assessments; At least one metric from Type I or II Type II 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 Type III Assessments

District Plan Requirements 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 non- district 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 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 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 AAssessment B Middle School Science- Grade 7 and 8 District-developed testType III, teacher-selected, with SLO Middle School Social Studies- Grade 7 and 8 District- developed testType III, teacher-selected, with SLO Middle School Physical EducationType III, teacher-selected, with SLO Middle School MusicType III, teacher-selected, with SLO Other Middle School SpecialsType III, teacher-selected, with SLO Special Education TeachersGeneral education assessmentType 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 AssessmentType III, teacher-selected, with SLO Library CoordinatorSRI- 20% Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO- 10% LibrariansSRI- 20% Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO- 10% MAPS CoordinatorSRI/SMI- 10% Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO- 20% Curriculum Coordinator- English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies, Inquiry Science SRI/SMI- 20% Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO- 10% Instructional Technology CoachesSRI/SMI- 10% Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO- 20% Instructional CoachesType III, teacher-selected, with SLO School Improvement CoordinatorSRI/SMI Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO based on district assessments- mathematics and English Language Arts Gifted CoordinatorType III, teacher-selected, with SLO Title I ReadingGates- 15% Type III, teacher-selected, with SLO- 15% 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. Understand Teacher Performance Aligned to Professional Practice in the teacher evaluation process and evaluator qualifications (Module 1-Teacher Evaluator Training) 2. Validate Knowledge and Skills when using professional standards to collect and measure evidence of teaching practice (Module 2) 3. Collaborate using observation and conversation to provide feedback to teachers on their planning, classroom environment, and instructional teaching practices (Module 3) 4. 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) 5. 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