factoring growth models into administrator and teacher performance evaluations -- a presentation for...

Factoring Growth ModelsFactoring Growth ModelsInto Administrator and TeacherInto Administrator and Teacher

Performance EvaluationsPerformance Evaluations

-- a presentation for ---- a presentation for --

Henderson, Mercer, and Warren CountiesHenderson, Mercer, and Warren CountiesRegional Office of EducationRegional Office of Education

January 13, 2012January 13, 2012

Mary Kay KlimeshSeyfarth Shaw LLP131 South Dearborn StreetSuite 2400Chicago, IL 60603(312) [email protected]

2 | © 2011 Seyfarth Shaw LLP2 | © 2011 Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Factoring Growth ModelsInto Performance Evaluations

• National trend is for performance evaluation of administrators and teachers to be tied to student achievement

• Race to the Top

3 | © 2011 Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Factoring Growth ModelsInto Performance Evaluations In Illinois

• For some time in Illinois, multi-year superintendent and administrative contracts must be based on student performance


Factoring Growth ModelsInto Performance Evaluations in Illinois

• Superintendent Multi-Year Contracts:

►School districts may employ a superintendent under a multi-year “performance-based contract” not exceeding 5 years



• Superintendent Multi-Year Contracts:

►“Performance-based contracts” must be “linked to student performance and academic improvement within the schools of the district.”

[105 ILCS 5/10-23.8]



• Principal and Other Administrator Multi-Year Contracts:

►School districts may employ principals and other administrators under a multi-year “performance-based contract” not exceeding 5 years



• Principal and Other Administrator Multi-Year Contracts:

►“Performance-based contracts” must be “linked to student performance and academic improvement attributable to the responsibilities and duties of the principal or administrator.”

[105 ILCS 5/10-23.8a]


Performance Evaluation Reform Act

• Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010 (PERA)

►Public Act 096-0861

►Effective January 15, 2010



• Finding:

►“Effective teachers and school leaders are a critical factor contributing to student achievement.”



• Finding:►“Many existing district performance evaluation

systems fail to adequately distinguish between effective and ineffective teachers and principals. A recent study of evaluation systems in 3 of the largest Illinois districts found that out of 41,174 teacher evaluations performed over a 5-year period, 92.6% of teachers were rated “superior” or “excellent,” 7% were rated “satisfactory,” and only 0.4% were rated “unsatisfactory.”



• Finding:

►“Performance evaluation systems must assess professional competencies as well as student growth.”



• Finding:

►“School districts and the State must ensure that performance evaluation systems are valid and reliable and contribute to the development of staff and improved student achievement outcomes.”


Student Performance Data Must Be Significant Factor

• PERA mandates that student performance data be a significant factor in teacher and principal evaluations no later than the applicable “Implementation Date” set by PERA.


4 Categories for Teacher and Principal Ratings

• PERA also mandates that:►teachers and principals be rated using

4 categories:excellentproficientneeds improvementunsatisfactory


Implementation Dates

• Implementation dates for PERA’s mandates:

►4 evaluation categories are required to be used on or after 9-1-2012



• Implementation date for use of teacher evaluation plans using student performance data as a significant factor:

9-1-2012 – for at least 300 schools in CPS 9-1-2013 – for remainder of schools in CPS 9-1-2015 -- for the lowest performing 20% of schools (other than

CPS) 9-1-2016 – for all other school districts (other than CPS and the

lowest performing 20%) Date specified in the grant -- if district is receiving a Race to the Top

Grant

• HOWEVER, SB7 allows school district and union to agree in writing to an earlier implementation date, so long as it is NOT earlier than 9-1-2013. Any written agreement must be sent to ISBE.



• Implementation dates for PERA’s mandates:

►Principal evaluations must provide for the use of data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating performance on or after 9-1-2012.


Requirements for Joint Development of the Teacher Evaluation Plan with Teachers/Union

• A school district must use a joint committee composed of equal representation selected by the school district and its teachers/union to incorporate the use of data and indicators of student growth as a significant factor in rating teacher performance into the evaluation plan.



• School districts must cooperate with teachers/union in “good faith” to develop the system to incorporate the use of data and indicators of student growth into teacher evaluation plan.

• If joint committee does not reach agreement on the evaluation plan within 180 calendar days of the committee’s first meeting, the school district must implement ISBE’s model evaluation plan (yet to be created).

[105 ILCS 5/24A-4].



• So . . .

School districts have options: develop a teacher evaluation plan through joint committee process or use the state model developed by ISBE/PEAC.


Requirements for Teacher Evaluation Plan

• The teacher evaluation plan must:

►Meet the standards and requirements for student growth and evaluation established under Section 24 A-7 of the School Code’s provisions addressing teacher evaluation.

►Section 24A-7 of the School Code provides that ISBE adopt rules related to the method for measuring student growth.



• The teacher evaluation plan must: ►specifically describe how student growth data and

indicators will be used as part of the evaluation process.

►use data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating teacher performance.

[105 ILCS 5/24A-4]



• The teacher evaluation plan must specifically describe:

►how student growth data and indicators will relate to evaluation standards.

[105 ILCS 5/24A-4]




►the assessments or other indicators of student performance that will be used in measuring student growth and the weight that each will have.

[105 ILCS 5/24A-4]




►the methodology that will be used to measure student growth.

[105 ILCS 5/24A-4]




►the criteria other than student growth that will be used in evaluating the teacher and the weight that each will have.

[105 ILCS 5/24A-4]


Requirements for Teacher Evaluation Plan and ISBE’s Rules

• ISBE is authorized to adopt rules to implement PERA

• Rules must be developed through a process involving collaboration with the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC)

• PEAC posts information on ISBE’s website at http://www.isbe.state.il.us/PEAC/default.htm



• ISBE’s Rules should include, but are not limited to, rules:

►(i) relating to the methods for measuring student growth (including, but not limited to, limitations on the age of useable data; the amount of data needed to reliably and validly measure growth for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluations)


Requirements forTeacher Evaluation Plan and ISBE’s Rules


►(ii) defining the term “significant factor” for purposes of including consideration of student growth in performance ratings




►(iii) controlling for such factors as student characteristics (including, but not limited to, students receiving special education and English Language Learner services), student attendance, and student mobility so as to best measure the impact that a teacher, principal, school and school district has on students’ academic achievement




►(iv) establishing minimum requirements for district teacher and principal evaluation instruments and procedures




►(v) establishing a model evaluation plan for use by school districts in which student growth shall comprise 50% of the performance rating.


PEAC’s Development of Recommendations

• ISBE/PEAC have developed draft proposals• Transforming Educator Evaluations in Illinois

(10-11-2011)• Posted at http://www.isbe.net/peac/pdf/ISBE-

PEAC_overview_pres101111.pdf



• ISBE’s/PEAC’s draft practice recommendations provides that teacher evaluation plan must:

►“adopt instructional framework with four levels (unsatisfactory, needs improvement, proficient, excellent)”

►include “[f]ormal and informal classroom observations”►include “[p]re-observation meeting to review lesson plan”►include “[p]ost-observation meeting with self-reflection and evaluator

feedback, with relevant evidence”

[See Transforming Education Evaluations in Illinois, p. 10].



• Also . . . ISBE’s/PEAC’s draft practice recommendations provides teacher evaluation plan include:

►at least 2 observations for non-probationary teachers (1 formal)►at least 3 observations for probationary teachers (2 formal)►requirement that professional development be aligned to National Staff

Development Council standards.

[See Transforming Education Evaluations in Illinois, p.11].



• Also . . . ISBE’s/PEAC’s draft practice recommendations indicates that assessments should be defined according to three distinct types:

►Type I – “An assessment that measure 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.”

►Type II – “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.”

►Type III – “An assessment that is rigorous, aligned with the course’s curriculum, and that the evaluator and teacher determine measures student learning.”

►[See Transforming Education Evaluations in Illinois, p.13].



• Also . . . ISBE’s/PEAC’s draft practice recommendations indicates that:

►Data should be acquired from at least 2 assessments: “At least 1 Type III assessment” “And, at least 1 Type 1 or II assessment (not ISAT or PSAE) “Or 2 Type III assessments”

►Joint committees to decide the metrics and targets►“Must comprise at least 30% of final rating”

• [See Transforming Education Evaluations in Illinois, p.12].



• Also . . . ISBE’s/PEAC’s draft practice recommendations indicates that assessments should be defined according to three distinct types:

►Type I – “An assessment that measure 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.”

►Type II – “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.”

►Type III – “An assessment that is rigorous, aligned with the course’s curriculum, and that the evaluator and teacher determine measures student learning.”

►[See Transforming Education Evaluations in Illinois, p.13].


No Waiver of PERA Requirements

• Illinois school districts must be ready. PERA prohibits school districts from waiving PERA’s requirements for:

►student performance data to be a significant factor in teacher or principal evaluations


No Waiver of PERA Requirements

• PERA also prohibits school districts from waiving PERA’s requirements for:

►teacher and principals to be rated using 4 categories of:

excellent proficient needs improvement unsatisfactory


Implementing PERA

• What’s at stake for teachers?►Under SB7, ratings impact length of teachers’

probationary periods ►Under SB7, ratings impact placement in 4

groupings for purposes of honorable dismissal►“Needs Improvement” rating may lead to PDP ►“Unsatisfactory” rating may lead to remediation

and, if not corrected, dismissal


Implementing PERA

• Teacher and principal evaluation systemsmust be defensible!

• Growth Models should be carefully configured to meet potential challenge.

factoring growth models into administrator and teacher performance evaluations -- a presentation for...

Documents