State Evaluations and Negotiations

1. State Evaluations and Negotiations Steven Kellner Ed.D. Director of Professional Learning Township High School District 214 Arlington Heights, IL

2. History • January of 2010, Gov. Pat Quinn signed the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) • PERA requires districts to design and implement performance evaluation systems that assess professional practice as well as incorporate measures of student growth. • Evaluators trained and pre-qualified to conduct observations, collect evidence, and provide helpful, timely feedback.

3. New Definition of Evaluator • Administrator who participates in ISBE approved in-service training on the evaluation of certified personnel • Other individuals who participate in the ISBE approved in-service training on the evaluation of certified personnel

4. Implementation Dates 1. At least 300 Chicago Public Schools: September 2012 2. All remaining CPS buildings: September 2013 3. Lowest performing 20% of schools among other districts of their type: September 2015 4. All Districts: September 2016

5. Using Student Growth Data • Student data must make up a “significant factor” of teacher evaluations by September 1, 2016. • Significant factor = 30% • State Model Plan will be use 50% • Joint Committee must select multiple measures to comprise student growth data

6. History Part 2 • On June 13, 2011 Gov. Quinn signed Senate Bill 7 into law. This modifies PERA in several key respects. • Connects student growth and teacher performance • Allows districts to base personnel decisions on teacher performance

7. Attainment of Tenure • All provisions are effective when a district implements the new teacher evaluation system required by PERA. • Teachers may attain tenure in two ways: • In four years by being rated “Proficient” or “Excellent” in the 4th year and either the 2nd or 3rd year • In three years by being rated “Excellent” in each of the first three years.

8. Reductions in Force • All CBAs entered into on or before January 1, 2011 requiring RIFs to be conducted by seniority will remain in effect until June 30, 2013. • Districts must consider qualifications and certification areas prior to seniority and tenure status

9. Categories and Groupings • Group One- staff without a rating. • Group Two- staff who received a “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” on either of their last two evaluations • Group Three- staff who received a “satisfactory” or “proficient” on both of their last two evaluations • Group Four- staff who received an “Excellent” on both of their last two evaluations or “Excellent” on their two of their last three.

10. Key Questions to Answer • If your current contract expires in June of 2014 or June of 2015 how should evaluations be addressed? • How does the role of the “joint committee” impact collective bargaining? • What are the advantages of a District Developed Plan vs. the State Model Plan

11. A Case Study from Township High School District 214 Changing Practice for Certified Evaluations

17. Understanding Differences

22. How will these changes impact your teachers?

23. Tenured Teachers • A two-year comprehensive goal setting process involving a goal development form completed by the teacher and a goal setting form completed collaboratively. • A walkthrough by the member of the principalship (API, APO, Principal) each year. • A peer observation and discussion during the first year of the two-year cycle. • Summative conference completed by February 1st of the second year.

24. Non-Tenured Teachers • A comprehensive goal setting process involving a goal development form completed by the teacher and a goal setting form completed collaboratively. • A walkthrough by the member of the principalship (API, APO, Principal) in their third and fourth year. • Summative conference completed by February 1st.

25. Time, Timelines and Process

26. Key Considerations • 1. How to facilitate a cycle of continuous improvement? • 2. How to involve multiple observers in the process? • 3. How to incorporate student data in a way that is collaborative, professional and statistically meaningful?

28. In order to meet the successful threshold of each of these categories, at least three of the following cohorts must meet or exceed the 5-year rolling historical cohort average growth: • The overall percentage of school days attended (computed by dividing the number of days attended by the sum of the number of days attended and the number of days absent). • The overall percentage of students who graduate (computed by dividing the number of graduates by the number in the graduating class who entered as freshmen, adjusted for the transfers into and out of the school and those students whose IEPs require that they remain in high school beyond four years. • Number of Advanced Placement tests per 100 students who score a 3 or higher in the school. • Percentage of students accessing at least one Advanced Placement course by building. • In the absence of a new statewide assessment system, composite student growth from EXPLORE to ACT and composite sub-group growth of EXPLORE to ACT. When the new statewide assessment system is implemented, that assessment system will be used. • Percentage of students scoring a 3 or above on the National Career Readiness Certificate exam. (Composite Only).

29. Administrative Evaluations • State Requirements: • Align with Illinois Standards for Principal Evaluations • Use of student data • Use of formal observation protocols • March 1st deadline

30. Administrative Evaluations • Key Considerations: • Developing a comprehensive rubric • Similar student data targets • Making observations meaningful • Parallel structure to certified staff evaluation