1. Transforming Educator Evaluations in Illinois
Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)
Illinois Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC)

2. Why This Matters We all want students to succeed
We know that teachers matter
We know that principals matter
We know that current evaluations can be improved
We know that the legislature has mandated changes
ISBE:
Introduce yourself.
Welcome.
We’re here because we all want to help all our students succeed.
We’re here because we know that the quality of the teacher has a huge impact on student learning.
We’re here because we know that the quality of the principal has a huge impact on the effectiveness of teachers in classrooms.
We’re here because we know that some current evaluation systems don’t work very well.
They’re often too subjective, they can be inconsistent, and not very helpful in providing support to improve practice.
We know that the legislature has mandated major changes to evaluations
We’re here because we know we can do better.
And with your help tonight, we will.
Why Illinois is in a better position that most states to get this right:
(1) A more collaborative and deliberative process
(2) Educator engagement and involvement at all stages, including teachers getting to help build the new evaluations in their districts
(3) Staged and more reasonable timelines than other states
updated 12/30/11

3. The Basics 2010 PERA law mandated major changes
New evaluations address both practice and student growth
Two choices for districts: Use General Rules to create your own system or use State Model (all or parts)
Teachers: If no local agreement on student growth after 180 days, must default to growth section of State Model
Chicago: Slightly different process and timelines
ISBE:
2010 Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) mandated major changes in our evaluation systems.
Teachers and principals will be evaluated on practice and student growth, which is new.
School districts and union representatives can create their own teacher evaluation systems that meet minimum state guidelines, or opt to use parts or all of a state model .
If no local agreement within 180 days on student growth measures, the district shall default to that part of the state model.
Slightly different process and timelines for Chicago.
updated 12/30/11

4. Key Dates: Developing the Systems
2010: Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) formed to provide recommendations to ISBE on rulemaking and implementation guidance
PEAC hosted regional forums, online/webinar survey to obtain feedback and input from educators throughout the state in Oct./Nov., 2011
December 2011: PEAC made recommendations to ISBE
Go to or ter/home.html to view the proposed rules
ISBE:
Educators are vital to this process, every step of the way
2010: Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) of 32 educators formed
October: Regional educator forums and online webinar
Late October: PEAC makes recommendations to the state
November: Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) publishes draft rules
November-December: 45-day public comment period
Spring 2012: ISBE finalizes rules
At every step, PEAC and ISBE want input from educators
updated 12/30/11

5. Key Dates: Developing & Implementing the Systems
Proposed rules will be reviewed by the Joint Committee on Rules (made up of legislators in February/March and pending the joint committee on Rules approval, become effective immediately thereafter based on the timelines in the rules/legislation
By Sept. 2012: ALL Evaluators trained – no longer required to have a Type 75 certification to be an evaluator, but must have completed/passed evaluation training and must be a trainer that has been agreed upon by the local PERA joint committee. Training contract awardee will be announced by February, 2012
ISBE:
By , evaluators must be trained and pre-qualified
By , all principals must be evaluated using new evaluation system
By , all teachers and principals must be rated using one of four performance categories (excellent, proficient, needs improvement, unsatisfactory)
New teacher evaluation systems will be phased in across the state between 2012 and 2016
Starts with 300 Chicago schools and all schools getting federal school improvement grant (SIG) money
updated 12/30/11

6. Key Dates: Developing & Implementing the Systems
: All principals & assistant principals evaluated following new rules
: All teacher summative evaluation ratings will reflect one of the four categories: Excellent, Proficient, Needs Improvement, or Unsatisfactory
: Teacher evaluations following new rules phased in, starting with 300 Chicago schools and all SIG (approximately 20) schools
updated 12/30/11

7. Key Dates: Developing & Implementing the Systems
: Teacher evaluations following new rules for the remaining CPS schools
: The lowest performing 20% of schools in the state
: All other districts in state implement PERA, Part 50 of administrative rules.
updated 12/30/11

8. Key Benefits Consistent standards…clearer, more objective feedback
Improved professional development
Multiple measures of student growth
Improved student learning
ISBE:
Consistent standards and clearer, objective feedback
Improved professional development
Multiple measures of student growth
Help ensure that all students are taught by an effective teacher … and all schools are led by effective principals
Ultimately, effective educators help prepare students for productive lives
updated 12/30/11

9. About PEAC
32 educators, union and association leaders from K-12 and higher education
20-month process … and counting
3 subcommittees: teachers, principals, training
8 Educator Forums and online survey, with input from more than 2,300 educators around the state
Regular scheduled meetings open to the public
Comprehensive website:
PEAC:
PEAC representative presents.
Introduce yourself.
32 educators, union and association leaders from K-12 and higher education
18-month process, and counting
3 subcommittees: teachers, principals, training
Regular meetings open to the public
Comprehensive website
We need your help before finalizing our recommendations to the board
updated 12/30/11

10. Draft Recommendations
Each district will convene a PERA joint committee of equal representation of teachers and administrators
Use of General Rules (minimum standards) to draft own district system
Or use of State Model
On student growth only, if district PERA joint committee cannot come to consensus then the teacher evaluation must default to State Model after 180 days
Chicago: Does not default to State Model. PERA legislation allows CPS to impose “its last best offer” if joint committee of teacher-administrator cannot agree
Emphasize that these recommendations are still very much in draft form.
The recommendations of the PEAC are predicated on the understanding that each school district in Illinois will convene, in accordance with the Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010 (PERA), a joint committee composed of equal representation of a district and teachers appointed by the exclusive bargaining representative.
Each joint committee will work toward design or adoption of a teacher evaluation system in accordance with the General Rules and, where applicable, the State Model.
For both principals and teachers, there are General Rules and the State Model.
The General Rules set minimum standards for the teacher evaluation systems adopted by each Illinois school district*.
The State Model serves as a template teacher evaluation system that joint committees may adopt in whole or in part.
Joint committees that cannot agree upon a student growth measurement system must “default” to the State Model. However…
Joint committees must “default” only to portions of the student growth model on which they cannot agree; they are not required to adopt the State Model in full.
There is a slightly different process for Chicago.
updated 12/30/11

11. Draft Recommendations
Teachers
Principals
General rules
State model
Training
Practice
Student growth
Practice
Student growth
70% proportional
>50%
proportional
>30%
>30%
Practice
Student growth
Practice
Student growth
50%
50%
50%
50%
For both General Rules and State Model, PEAC will be making recommendations on both
--Professional Practice
--Student Growth
Plus, we’re making recommendations on the types of TRAINING all evaluators must have.
updated 12/30/11

12. TEACHERS: Draft Practice Recommendations (General Rules)
Districts must adopt instructional framework aligned with the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards with four performance levels for the summative rating:
unsatisfactory
needs improvement
Proficient
excellent
A school district must develop or adopt an instructional framework for effective practice (e.g., Charlotte Danielson) that is based upon research regarding effective instruction and that addresses at least planning, instructional delivery, and classroom management; and, that is aligned with the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards.
The framework shall include a description of the four rating categories to be used and how these are aligned to the required rating levels (excellent, proficient, needs improvement, unsatisfactory).
The school district shall define the relative importance of each portion of the framework to the final teacher practice rating.
Evidence of teaching practice must be collected through:
Formal observation(s), observation(s) of the teacher in his or her classroom that last(s) for a minimum of 45 minutes, a complete lesson, or an entire class period, and where evidence of the teacher’s planning, instructional delivery and classroom management skills is collected, and that is bounded by pre- and post-conferences;
Informal observation(s), observations that may or may not be announced and do not include a pre-conference, but do include feedback, and that are not subject to a time requirement
Consideration of additional evidence of practice as decided upon by the joint committee.
Each formal observation shall be preceded by a conference between an evaluator and the teacher. 
In advance of this conference, an evaluator and teacher shall meet to discuss the plan for the lesson and any areas on which the evaluator should focus the observation, if applicable.
In advance of this conference, the teacher should provide a written lesson plan and/or other evidence of instructional planning that will be conducted on the day of the formal observation.
Each observation shall be followed by a conference between an evaluator and the teacher. 
Following each observation, an evaluator and teacher shall discuss the teacher’s professional practice.
The teacher shall reflect upon his or her instruction and, if applicable, provide to the evaluator additional information or explanations about the presentation.
The evaluator shall provide feedback to the teacher about his or her professional practice, including data and evidence specific to the areas of focus designated during the pre-conference.
updated 12/30/11

13. TEACHERS: Draft Practice Recommendations (General Rules)
Formal classroom observations
District PERA joint committee defines characteristics of a formal observation with the total number of observations
Evaluator required to meet with the individual in a pre-conference to preview the lesson
Required post-conference providing feedback of evidence collected
A school district must develop or adopt an instructional framework for effective practice (e.g., Charlotte Danielson) that is based upon research regarding effective instruction and that addresses at least planning, instructional delivery, and classroom management; and, that is aligned with the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards.
The framework shall include a description of the four rating categories to be used and how these are aligned to the required rating levels (excellent, proficient, needs improvement, unsatisfactory).
The school district shall define the relative importance of each portion of the framework to the final teacher practice rating.
Evidence of teaching practice must be collected through:
Formal observation(s), observation(s) of the teacher in his or her classroom that last(s) for a minimum of 45 minutes, a complete lesson, or an entire class period, and where evidence of the teacher’s planning, instructional delivery and classroom management skills is collected, and that is bounded by pre- and post-conferences;
Informal observation(s), observations that may or may not be announced and do not include a pre-conference, but do include feedback, and that are not subject to a time requirement
Consideration of additional evidence of practice as decided upon by the joint committee.
Each formal observation shall be preceded by a conference between an evaluator and the teacher. 
In advance of this conference, an evaluator and teacher shall meet to discuss the plan for the lesson and any areas on which the evaluator should focus the observation, if applicable.
In advance of this conference, the teacher should provide a written lesson plan and/or other evidence of instructional planning that will be conducted on the day of the formal observation.
Each observation shall be followed by a conference between an evaluator and the teacher. 
Following each observation, an evaluator and teacher shall discuss the teacher’s professional practice.
The teacher shall reflect upon his or her instruction and, if applicable, provide to the evaluator additional information or explanations about the presentation.
The evaluator shall provide feedback to the teacher about his or her professional practice, including data and evidence specific to the areas of focus designated during the pre-conference.
updated 12/30/11

14. TEACHERS: Draft Practice Recommendations (General Rules)
Informal classroom observations
District PERA joint committee defines informal classroom observations
May or may not be announced
No requirement of a pre-conference
Does not have to include immediate feedback
Not subject to a time requirement
Post-conference meeting with self-reflection and written evaluator feedback, with relevant evidence
A school district must develop or adopt an instructional framework for effective practice (e.g., Charlotte Danielson) that is based upon research regarding effective instruction and that addresses at least planning, instructional delivery, and classroom management; and, that is aligned with the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards.
The framework shall include a description of the four rating categories to be used and how these are aligned to the required rating levels (excellent, proficient, needs improvement, unsatisfactory).
The school district shall define the relative importance of each portion of the framework to the final teacher practice rating.
Evidence of teaching practice must be collected through:
Formal observation(s), observation(s) of the teacher in his or her classroom that last(s) for a minimum of 45 minutes, a complete lesson, or an entire class period, and where evidence of the teacher’s planning, instructional delivery and classroom management skills is collected, and that is bounded by pre- and post-conferences;
Informal observation(s), observations that may or may not be announced and do not include a pre-conference, but do include feedback, and that are not subject to a time requirement
Consideration of additional evidence of practice as decided upon by the joint committee.
Each formal observation shall be preceded by a conference between an evaluator and the teacher. 
In advance of this conference, an evaluator and teacher shall meet to discuss the plan for the lesson and any areas on which the evaluator should focus the observation, if applicable.
In advance of this conference, the teacher should provide a written lesson plan and/or other evidence of instructional planning that will be conducted on the day of the formal observation.
Each observation shall be followed by a conference between an evaluator and the teacher. 
Following each observation, an evaluator and teacher shall discuss the teacher’s professional practice.
The teacher shall reflect upon his or her instruction and, if applicable, provide to the evaluator additional information or explanations about the presentation.
The evaluator shall provide feedback to the teacher about his or her professional practice, including data and evidence specific to the areas of focus designated during the pre-conference.
updated 12/30/11

15. TEACHERS: Draft Practice Recommendations (General Rules)
Non-probationary teachers: at least 2 observations (1 formal)
Probationary teachers: at least 3 observations (2 formal)
Professional development must align to National Staff Development Council standards
Evidence of practice must be collected consistent with a rubric that is aligned to the district’s instructional framework.
--Evaluators and their designees must create a record of evidence that is devoid of the evaluator’s judgment or presumption.
--For non-probationary teachers, a minimum of two (2) observations (one formal) for each evaluation cycle are required.
---For probationary teachers a minimum of three (3) observations (two formal) for each year are required
--Professional development provided as part of a remediation or assistance plan shall align to the National Staff Development Council’s Standards for Staff Development (2001).
updated 12/30/11

16. TEACHERS: Draft Student Growth Recommendations (General Rules)
“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 (not ISAT or PSAE)
Or two Type III assessments
District PERA joint committee decides metrics and targets, including for different student groups (ELL, etc.)
Must comprise at least 25% of final rating in and , 30% thereafter
Student growth is a demonstrable change in a student’s learning between two or more points in time.
Every teacher will be evaluated based upon data from at least two assessments, including:
--at least one Type 1 or Type II assessments
--at least one Type III assessment
In the event that a Type I or Type II assessment cannot be identified, then the teacher and evaluator shall identify at least two Type III assessments.
NOTE: Details on Type I,II, III assessments on next slide.
Joint committees shall work toward setting growth targets, when appropriate, consistent with selected assessments and metrics.
--Joint committees shall work toward identifying a uniform process (to occur at the midpoint of the evaluation cycle) by which the teacher will collect interim data specific to student learning to allow for a teacher to assess his or her progress and adjust instruction as needed.
--The interim data shall not be used to determine the performance evaluation rating.
The summative student growth rating shall comprise at least 25% of a teacher’s final performance evaluation rating for next two years, 30% by school year
updated 12/30/11

17. Assessments shall be defined according to three distinct types:
Type I
Type II
Type III
An assessment that measures a certain group of students in the same manner with the same potential assessment items, is scored by a non-district entity, and is widely administered beyond Illinois
An assessment developed or adopted and approved by the school district and used on a district-wide basis that is given by all teachers in a given grade or subject area
An assessment that is rigorous, aligned with the course’s curriculum, and that the evaluator and teacher determine measures student learning
Examples: Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) MAP tests, Scantron Performance Series
Examples: Collaboratively developed common assessments, curriculum tests, assessments designed by textbook publishers
Examples: teacher-created assessments, assessments of student performance
updated 12/30/11

18. TEACHERS: Draft Recommendations (State Model)
Generally the same as General Rules, except:
3 conferences (start, middle, end of year)
Student Growth: Counts for 50% of final rating
The State Model is fully aligned with the General Rules, which means all General Rules are applied to the State Model.
--Only the Student Growth portion of the state model must appear in the Administrative Rules; Teacher Practice recommendations are provided here for reference only.
The State Model shall employ the Danielson Framework for Teaching,* including all domains, components, and rating level labels defined in the published instructional framework.
The process for conducting observations shall be the same as the process defined in the General Rules, plus:
--A beginning-of-year conference in which the teacher and evaluator meet to set goals for teacher practice and student growth, review a teacher self-reflection, and develop a written professional growth plan for the teacher; and,
--A mid-year conference in which the teacher and evaluator meet to discuss progress toward student growth and teacher practice goals; and,
--An end-of-year conference in which the teacher and evaluator meet to review evidence, the teacher’s performance evaluation rating, and report.
Growth counts for 50% of final rating.
Recommendations for the State Model for Student Growth Measurement will be completed in two phases:
--Phase I: Development of Key Components
--Phase II: Identification of Assessments, Metrics, and Processes
Recommendations related to Phase II will be established after Phase I recommendations are adopted
by the full PEAC
updated 12/30/11

19. PRINCIPALS: Draft Recommendations (General Rules)
Same rules apply for assistant principals
Annual evaluations required
Principal will complete a self-assessment against the standards of practice no later than February 1. The evaluator will use the information provided in the self- assessment as one input to the overall evaluation of principal practice.
Practice framework must align to new state Standards for Principal Evaluation found in the proposed rules.
Each principal/assistant principal must be evaluated every year
A final, written summative report will be prepared by March 1 every year
The summative evaluation must:
--Consider the principal’s specific duties, responsibilities, management, and competence as a principal
--Specify the principal’s strengths and weaknesses, with supporting evidence
--Rate the principal’s performance as:
o Excellent
o Proficient
o Needs Improvement
o Unsatisfactory
Districts can use General Rules or choose to use the State Model; unlike for teachers, there is no mandatory default to State Model for principal evaluations
updated 12/30/11

20. PRINCIPALS: Draft Practice Recommendations (General Rules)
Final, written summative evaluation by March 1 (July 1 for CPS)
Rate in one of four performance levels (Excellent, Proficient, Needs Improvement, or Unsatisfactory) with clear indicators and written evidence that identifies specific strengths/weaknesses
District use of General Rules by PERA joint committee to develop own system or use State Model … but no mandated default to State Model as for teachers
Practice: Counts for at least 50% of overall evaluation
PERA requires growth to account for 50% of overall evaluation
The principal evaluator must conduct a minimum of two formal school site observations for every principal. Formal school site observations defined as:
--Time spent in the school site observing school practices, that may also include direct observation of principal action
--Scheduled in advance with at least one specific observation objective (reviewing classrooms, observing a leadership team meeting, etc)
The evaluator may conduct additional formal or informal observations as needed
The evaluator can use data from a learning climate survey as one input to the evaluation of principal practice
Principal will complete a self-assessment against the standards of practice no later than February 1 of each calendar year. The evaluator will use the information provided in the self-assessment as one input to the overall evaluation of principal practice.
updated 12/30/11

21. PRINCIPALS: Draft Practice Recommendations (General Rules)
At least 2 formal site observations
Observing school and/or principal practice, scheduled in advance, feedback within 10 days
Time spent in the school site observing school practices, that may also include direct observation of principal action
Scheduled in advance with at least one specific observation objective (reviewing classrooms, observing a leadership team meeting, etc)
Followed within 10 principal work days by feedback on the observation shared from evaluator to the principal, either in writing or verbally
The evaluator may conduct additional formal observations as needed
No later than October 1 of every calendar year, the principal evaluator must hold a student growth conference with the principal to set student growth measures and targets and professional growth goals.
The district must define how the data gathered against the principal practice standards will be used to determine a summative practice rating
updated 12/30/11

22. PRINCIPALS: Draft Practice Recommendations (General Rules)
The evaluator may conduct as many informal site observations as needed, and information from informal site visits may also be included in the summative evaluation as long as it is documented in writing
By October 1: Evaluator and principal set student growth measures and targets, plus PD goals
Principal and evaluator together define how data will be used, with specific weights for each assessment and target
No later than October 1 of every calendar year, the principal evaluator must hold a student growth conference with the principal to set student growth measures and targets and professional growth goals.
The district must define how the data gathered against the principal practice standards will be used to determine a summative practice rating
updated 12/30/11

23. PRINCIPALS: Draft Student Growth Recommendations (General Rules)
“Measurable change in a student’s or group of students’ knowledge or skills between two or more points in time”
Growth: Counts for at least 25% of final evaluation in and , 30% thereafter
Use of standardized tests (including ISAT and PSAE) and district-developed tests; only in special circumstances will Type III tests developed by teachers/evaluators be used
As with teachers, student growth is “measurable change in a student’s or group of students’ knowledge or skills between two or more points in time”
25% of final evaluation in next two years, 30% thereafter
The student growth portion of the principal evaluation must be based on academic assessments
“Academic” is defined as any instructional area for which Illinois state standards exist
Require the use of multiple academic assessments--Types I and II, typically not Type III. Type III are not included because there are too many and it would be difficult to combine them into a rating but may be used for principals in special circumstances.
Annual state assessments (ISAT, PSAE) may be used as one of the measures of student growth
When the state has a school-level value added score available for all schools in the state, this value-added score must comprise a majority of student growth
A student will be included in the student growth metric as long as the student has been assigned to the school long enough to have at least two data points on a comparable assessment (e.g ISAT and 2013 ISAT, or a beginning of year assessment and midyear assessment within an aligned interim assessment system.)
The district or principal evaluator shall determine how certain student characteristics (e.g., special education placement, English language learners, low-income populations) shall be considered for each assessment and target chosen to ensure that best measure the impact that the school has on student’ academic achievement.
updated 12/30/11

24. PRINCIPALS: Draft Student Growth Recommendations (General Rules)
When available from PARCC, state value-added score must comprise most of growth rating
District, evaluator, and principal will decide how to account for certain student characteristics (ELL, SPED, etc.)
As with teachers, student growth is “measurable change in a student’s or group of students’ knowledge or skills between two or more points in time”
25% of final evaluation in next two years, 30% thereafter
The student growth portion of the principal evaluation must be based on academic assessments
“Academic” is defined as any instructional area for which Illinois state standards exist
Require the use of multiple academic assessments--Types I and II, typically not Type III. Type III are not included because there are too many and it would be difficult to combine them into a rating but may be used for principals in special circumstances.
Annual state assessments (ISAT, PSAE) may be used as one of the measures of student growth
When the state has a school-level value added score available for all schools in the state, this value-added score must comprise a majority of student growth
A student will be included in the student growth metric as long as the student has been assigned to the school long enough to have at least two data points on a comparable assessment (e.g ISAT and 2013 ISAT, or a beginning of year assessment and midyear assessment within an aligned interim assessment system.)
The district or principal evaluator shall determine how certain student characteristics (e.g., special education placement, English language learners, low-income populations) shall be considered for each assessment and target chosen to ensure that best measure the impact that the school has on student’ academic achievement.
updated 12/30/11

25. Assessments for Principals
Assessments shall be defined according to three distinct types:
Type I
Type II
Type III
An assessment that measures a certain group of students in the same manner with the same potential assessment items, is scored by a non-district entity, and is widely administered beyond Illinois
An assessment developed or adopted and approved by the school district and used on a district-wide basis that is given by all teachers in a given grade or subject area
An assessment that is rigorous, aligned with the course’s curriculum, and that the evaluator and teacher determine measures student learning
Examples: Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) MAP tests, Scantron Performance Series
Examples: Collaboratively developed common assessments, curriculum tests, assessments designed by textbook publishers
Examples: teacher-created assessments, assessments of student performance
Special circumstances only
Note that Type III assessments developed by teachers and teachers/evaluators generally are not available for principals except in special circumstances.
updated 12/30/11

26. PRINCIPALS: Draft Practice Recommendations (State Model)
Minimum Weight for Principal Practice - the “principal practice” portion of the principal evaluation must comprise at least 50% of the overall principal evaluation
Requirements for Principal Evaluation Instruments
Every district must align the instruments for evaluation of principal practice to the revised Illinois Standards for Principal Evaluation (drafted by sub-committee and included in proposed rules)
Every district must create or select a rubric that has clear indicators for each standard and clear descriptions of at least 4 performance levels for each indicator
For any district not adopting the default rubric, the district must create a training process to build shared awareness and understanding of the rubric and principal practice expectations with all principals and principal evaluators
Maintain all guidelines for 30% of the principal evaluation (based on multiple academic assessments, use Tier I or Tier II assessments and under special circumstances use of Type III, focused only on growth measures for same group of students)
Remaining 20% of the student growth portion of state model can focus on similar academic assessments of growth, or on a broader set of student outcome measures
Academic Measures: Examples
Attainment measures on academic assessments, Cohort-to-cohort improvement measures on academic assessments; Subgroup performance data on academic assessments; Pass rates on AP exams, and potentially by subgroup as well 21st Century skill assessments (may be non-test depending on assessment); Growth for ELL students; WorkKeys assessments
Nontest Measures: Examples
Attendance, Postsecondary matriculation and persistence, Graduation rate, % on track to graduation, 9th grade and 10th grade promotion, Truancy, Excused/Unexcused Absences, Student surveys – perception and engagement data (e.g. AIMS or MET project surveys), Discipline information (referrals) – if district has consistent definitions and approach (ex. PBIS, student behavior programs), AP completion rates, Dual-credit earning rates
updated 12/30/11

27. PRINCIPALS: Draft Practice Recommendations (State Model)
Rules for Gathering Data on Principal Practice are same as the General Recommendations for Principal Practice
Rules for the Summative Rating of Principal Practice
In the summative evaluation, the evaluator must identify a performance rating with written evidence to support the rating for each standard
The summative evaluation must identify the strengths and growth areas of the principal
The district must define how the data gathered against the principal practice standards will be used to determine a summative practice rating
Maintain all guidelines for 30% of the principal evaluation (based on multiple academic assessments, use Tier I or Tier II assessments and under special circumstances use of Type III, focused only on growth measures for same group of students)
Remaining 20% of the student growth portion of state model can focus on similar academic assessments of growth, or on a broader set of student outcome measures
Academic Measures: Examples
Attainment measures on academic assessments, Cohort-to-cohort improvement measures on academic assessments; Subgroup performance data on academic assessments; Pass rates on AP exams, and potentially by subgroup as well 21st Century skill assessments (may be non-test depending on assessment); Growth for ELL students; WorkKeys assessments
Nontest Measures: Examples
Attendance, Postsecondary matriculation and persistence, Graduation rate, % on track to graduation, 9th grade and 10th grade promotion, Truancy, Excused/Unexcused Absences, Student surveys – perception and engagement data (e.g. AIMS or MET project surveys), Discipline information (referrals) – if district has consistent definitions and approach (ex. PBIS, student behavior programs), AP completion rates, Dual-credit earning rates
updated 12/30/11

28. PRINCIPALS: Draft Student Growth Recommendations (State Model)
Selecting Assessments and Setting Targets - No later than October 1 of every calendar year, the evaluator must inform the principal which assessments, data, and targets will be used to judge student growth for the year, and specify the weights of each outcome and target
Including Students in Growth Calculation - A student will be included in the student growth metric as long as the student has been assigned to the school long enough to have at least two data points on a comparable assessment (e.g ISAT and 2013 ISAT, or a beginning of year assessment and mid-year assessment within an aligned interim assessment system.)
Maintain all guidelines for 30% of the principal evaluation (based on multiple academic assessments, use Tier I or Tier II assessments and under special circumstances use of Type III, focused only on growth measures for same group of students)
Remaining 20% of the student growth portion of state model can focus on similar academic assessments of growth, or on a broader set of student outcome measures
Academic Measures: Examples
Attainment measures on academic assessments, Cohort-to-cohort improvement measures on academic assessments; Subgroup performance data on academic assessments; Pass rates on AP exams, and potentially by subgroup as well 21st Century skill assessments (may be non-test depending on assessment); Growth for ELL students; WorkKeys assessments
Nontest Measures: Examples
Attendance, Postsecondary matriculation and persistence, Graduation rate, % on track to graduation, 9th grade and 10th grade promotion, Truancy, Excused/Unexcused Absences, Student surveys – perception and engagement data (e.g. AIMS or MET project surveys), Discipline information (referrals) – if district has consistent definitions and approach (ex. PBIS, student behavior programs), AP completion rates, Dual-credit earning rates
updated 12/30/11

29. PRINCIPALS: Draft Student Growth Recommendations (State Model)
Definition of Student Growth - A measurable change in student outcomes at the school level. Totaling 50% of Summative Evaluation
Maintain all general guidelines for 30% of the principal evaluation:
The student growth portion of the principal evaluation must be based on academic assessments - “Academic” is defined as any instructional area for which Illinois state standards exist
Require the use of multiple academic assessments
The state model uses assessments that meet the definition of Type 1 and Type 2 for principal evaluation, including state assessments
Maintain all guidelines for 30% of the principal evaluation (based on multiple academic assessments, use Tier I or Tier II assessments and under special circumstances use of Type III, focused only on growth measures for same group of students)
Remaining 20% of the student growth portion of state model can focus on similar academic assessments of growth, or on a broader set of student outcome measures
Academic Measures: Examples
Attainment measures on academic assessments, Cohort-to-cohort improvement measures on academic assessments; Subgroup performance data on academic assessments; Pass rates on AP exams, and potentially by subgroup as well 21st Century skill assessments (may be non-test depending on assessment); Growth for ELL students; WorkKeys assessments
Nontest Measures: Examples
Attendance, Postsecondary matriculation and persistence, Graduation rate, % on track to graduation, 9th grade and 10th grade promotion, Truancy, Excused/Unexcused Absences, Student surveys – perception and engagement data (e.g. AIMS or MET project surveys), Discipline information (referrals) – if district has consistent definitions and approach (ex. PBIS, student behavior programs), AP completion rates, Dual-credit earning rates
updated 12/30/11

30. PRINCIPALS: Draft Student Growth Recommendations (State Model)
Definition of Student Growth - A measurable change in student outcomes at the school level. Totaling 50% of Summative Evaluation
Remaining 20% of the student growth portion of state model can focus on similar academic assessments of growth, or on a broader set of student outcome measures
Maintain all guidelines for 30% of the principal evaluation (based on multiple academic assessments, use Tier I or Tier II assessments and under special circumstances use of Type III, focused only on growth measures for same group of students)
Remaining 20% of the student growth portion of state model can focus on similar academic assessments of growth, or on a broader set of student outcome measures
Academic Measures: Examples
Attainment measures on academic assessments, Cohort-to-cohort improvement measures on academic assessments; Subgroup performance data on academic assessments; Pass rates on AP exams, and potentially by subgroup as well 21st Century skill assessments (may be non-test depending on assessment); Growth for ELL students; WorkKeys assessments
Nontest Measures: Examples
Attendance, Postsecondary matriculation and persistence, Graduation rate, % on track to graduation, 9th grade and 10th grade promotion, Truancy, Excused/Unexcused Absences, Student surveys – perception and engagement data (e.g. AIMS or MET project surveys), Discipline information (referrals) – if district has consistent definitions and approach (ex. PBIS, student behavior programs), AP completion rates, Dual-credit earning rates
updated 12/30/11

31. PRINCIPALS: Draft Student Growth Rec (State Model) Elem/MS
Element
Assessment/Outcome
Measure
30% Academic Assessments
20% based on growth on ISAT from previous year*
Increase in % meets standards AND increase in % exceeds standards – looking at same students from grade to grade
10% based on interim assessment with a normed prediction of performance for each student based on baseline
% of students meeting or exceeding predicted growth OR average growth over predicted
20% Other Outcomes
10% based on attainment measures on ISAT (Given timing of state test data and the March 1 evaluation completion requirement, these measures will not be available for first year principals and districts will need to use an additional interim assessment in place of the ISAT data.)
% of students exceeding expectations OR % of students meeting expectations (if a school has a low % of students meeting expectations)
10% based on:
Increasing attendance and reducing unexcused absences
AND/OR other non-test measures aligned to the school improvement plan
Increase in average daily attendance/decrease in total unexcused absences
AND/OR another non-test measure selected by the district
Maintain all guidelines for 30% of the principal evaluation (based on multiple academic assessments, use Tier I or Tier II assessments and under special circumstances use of Type III, focused only on growth measures for same group of students)
Remaining 20% of the student growth portion of state model can focus on similar academic assessments of growth, or on a broader set of student outcome measures
Academic Measures: Examples
Attainment measures on academic assessments, Cohort-to-cohort improvement measures on academic assessments; Subgroup performance data on academic assessments; Pass rates on AP exams, and potentially by subgroup as well 21st Century skill assessments (may be non-test depending on assessment); Growth for ELL students; WorkKeys assessments
Nontest Measures: Examples
Attendance, Postsecondary matriculation and persistence, Graduation rate, % on track to graduation, 9th grade and 10th grade promotion, Truancy, Excused/Unexcused Absences, Student surveys – perception and engagement data (e.g. AIMS or MET project surveys), Discipline information (referrals) – if district has consistent definitions and approach (ex. PBIS, student behavior programs), AP completion rates, Dual-credit earning rates
updated 12/30/11

32. PRINCIPALS: Draft Student Growth Rec (State Model) HS
Element
Assessment/Outcome
Measure
30% Academic Assessments
20% based on growth in EPAS sequence (from previous year--given timing of state test data and the March 1 evaluation requirement, these measures will not be available for first year principals and districts will need to use an additional interim assessment in place of the EPAS data.)
% of students meeting or exceeding predicted growth OR average growth over predicted
10% based on interim assessment with a normed prediction of performance for each student based on baseline
20% Other Outcomes
20% based on:
Cohort graduation rates, grade-to grade progression, or “on track” rates
AND/OR other student outcomes aligned to the school improvement plan
% increase in graduation rate or increase in % of students that progress from grade to grade, OR
AND/OR another student outcome measure selected by the district
Maintain all guidelines for 30% of the principal evaluation (based on multiple academic assessments, use Tier I or Tier II assessments and under special circumstances use of Type III, focused only on growth measures for same group of students)
Remaining 20% of the student growth portion of state model can focus on similar academic assessments of growth, or on a broader set of student outcome measures
Academic Measures: Examples
Attainment measures on academic assessments, Cohort-to-cohort improvement measures on academic assessments; Subgroup performance data on academic assessments; Pass rates on AP exams, and potentially by subgroup as well 21st Century skill assessments (may be non-test depending on assessment); Growth for ELL students; WorkKeys assessments
Nontest Measures: Examples
Attendance, Postsecondary matriculation and persistence, Graduation rate, % on track to graduation, 9th grade and 10th grade promotion, Truancy, Excused/Unexcused Absences, Student surveys – perception and engagement data (e.g. AIMS or MET project surveys), Discipline information (referrals) – if district has consistent definitions and approach (ex. PBIS, student behavior programs), AP completion rates, Dual-credit earning rates
updated 12/30/11

33. Defining Student Growth Performance Levels
Exceeds Goal - Exceeds the target for a majority of the student growth measures; meets all targets
Meets Goal - Meets or exceeds the target for a majority of the student growth measures; does not have negative growth on any measures
Minimal Growth - Meets only 1 or 2 student growth targets; has no more than one measure with negative growth results
No Growth or Negative Growth - Does not meet any student growth targets; demonstrates negative growth on one or more measures
updated 12/30/11

34. PRINCIPALS: Draft Recommendations (State Model) Summative Rating Model
Rating of Principal Practice
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Rating of Student Growth
Exceeds Goal
EXCELLENT
PROFICIENT
Gather Further Information—EVALUATOR JUDGMENT DETERMINES RATING
Meets Goal
Minimal Growth
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
Experienced Principals: UNSATISFACTORY
First Year Principals:
No Growth/Negative Growth
updated 12/30/11

35. Input & Further Information
Proposed rules can be viewed at or
r/home.html
More information at
updated 12/30/11