Evanston/Skokie School District 65

1. Evanston/Skokie School District 65 Educating each student to success Presented by District 65 Educators’ Council (IEA, NEA) Evanston/Skokie Illinois Jean Luft, President Patrice Prescott, Evaluation Committee Member

2. Background Before 2009-10: District 65 had a waiver from the state to use the following teacher ratings: • Meets District Standards • Needs to Improve to Meet District Standards • Unsatisfactory • State implemented new three-tier approach: Excellent, Satisfactory, and, Unsatisfactory

3. 2008 Teacher Contract Negotiations: They were long and difficult. In September, 98% of teachers rejected the first tentative agreement. The rejection was based on a proposed longer school day and a revised teacher appraisal system.

4. November 2008 • The country entered an economic crisis that led to a recession. • The second tentative contract agreement was reached. It included a compromise on the length of the school day and language that a joint committee would work with mutually-agreed upon facilitators, to reach consensus and revise the professional appraisal system to ratings of Excellent, Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory. • Approximately 600 teachers vote and the contract passes by only 8 votes. Many votes were heavily influenced by economic worries.

5. 5 The Solution The Challenge A performance model defined around broad conceptual indicators of student growth that encompass measures within acceptable parameters, e.g., more, the same, less/fewer, trend, and most. Develop a system with agreed-upon student performance criteria for determining teacher performance ratings, and Find a solution that incorporates agreed-upon measures of student growth.

6. 6 Effective Evaluation An effective appraisal system provides formative feedback to help enhance a teacher’s professional performance and provides summative feedback to help improve the design and delivery of instruction. New Model Charlotte Danielson Model + Student Growth = Summative Rating

7. 7 D65 Evaluation Components Student growth (instructional outcome) Evaluators use a mix of measures (including MAP, ISEL, DRA, curriculum-based assessments, etc.), to determine whether more, the same, or fewer students are at and above grade level and look at the class trend to determine the student-growth rating. Danielson (instructional process) Evaluators use the Danielson matrix for classroom observations, in conversations with teachers, in lesson plan review, etc. to determine Danielson rating.

8. 8 DANIELSON FRAMEWORK: Domains, Components and Elements • Four Domains • Planning and Preparation • Classroom Environment • Instruction • Professional Responsibilities 22 Components 66 Elements New special area rubrics developed by Danielson for non classroom teachers (e.g., speech therapist, therapeutic specialist, librarian)

9. Distinguished – community of learners; student assumption of responsibility Proficient – successful, professional, effective teaching Basic – knowledge and skills, inconsistent performance due to lack of experience Unsatisfactory – doing harm 9 Danielson’s Levels of Performance

10. 10 Transforming the 4 levels of the Danielson model to the 3 levels of performance ratings Danielson – Distinguished, Proficient, Basic, Unsatisfactory State Required Performance Ratings – Excellent, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory Transforming the Ratings

11. 11 Excellent: Proficient performance rating in all 22 components plus at least oneDistinguished rating in each of the four domains. Satisfactory: Combination of Proficient and Basic performance ratings with a preponderance of Proficient or above. Unsatisfactory:A combination of Basic and Proficient with a preponderance of Basic or any Unsatisfactory levels of performance. Danielson Model and Tenured Teacher Ratings

12. Excellent - Proficient performance in all 22 components plus at least oneDistinguished rating in each of the four domains Satisfactory - Any combination of Proficient and Basic performance ratings. Unsatisfactory – Any Unsatisfactory levels of performance. 12 Danielson Model and Non-Tenured Teachers

13. 13 Student Growth Measures Student growth is assessed by using: • Grade level expectations • Content area expectations • A mix of measures (e.g. more than one assessment result is used when reviewing documentation relative to student growth; may vary from grade to grade and by subject)

14. 14 Student Growth Expected growth is a year’s increase in achievement for one year in school. (One year of academic growth for one year of instruction should be a minimum expectation.) Improved growth is when student(s) exceed a year’s growth for a year of attendance. Grade level is defined as functioning at the 50th percentile. • Improved student achievement is essential to close the achievement gap

15. 15 Levels of Student Performance and Trend Student performance is either • At and above grade level or • Below grade level An Upward Trend is achieved when most students have grown a year, and at least one student grows more than a year A Downward Trend is when most students have grown less than a year

16. 16 Teacher rated Excellentfor student growth More students at and above grade level at the end of the year than at the beginning. However, in determining the performance rating, the principal and teacher shall discuss the growth trend of the class to ensure that a fair and accurate summative rating is given to the teacher.

17. 17 Teacher Rated Satisfactoryfor student growth The same number of students at and above grade level at the end of the year as at the beginning. However, in determining the performance rating, the principal and teacher shall discuss the growth trend of the class to ensure that a fair and accurate summative rating is given to the teacher.

18. 18 Teacher rated Unsatisfactoryfor Student Growth Fewer students at and above grade level at the end of the year as at the beginning of the year. However, in determining the performance rating, the principal and teacher shall discuss the growth trend of the class to ensure that a fair and accurate summative rating is given to the teacher.

19. 19 Shared Responsibility When more than one teacher is significantly engaged in a student’s education (general education, special education, reading/learning specialists and/or others), they share responsibility for the student’s growth. These teachers collaboratively develop challenging standards-based goals and jointly monitor student progress. In the case of a student with an IEP, the IEP can meet this requirement.

20. Extenuating Circumstances • A teacher is responsible for the growth of all students. • Extenuating circumstances that impact the achievement level of some students may be considered. Extenuating factors include, but are not limited to: • behavioral • emotional • health concerns • family issues • attendance • enrollment date • The impact extenuating factors may have on student growth should be identified by the teacher and addressed during ongoing conversations throughout the year between the teacher and evaluator, as well as at the summative conference. 20

21. Summative Ratings • A summative conference is held at the end of the year. • Teacher and evaluator discuss the teacher’s performance related to: • Danielson Framework (the teaching/instructional process) • Student Growth (the teaching/instructional outcomes) • Teacher and evaluator review trend* data, extenuating circumstances and other appropriate documentation. *Upward or downward trend in student achievement can change a growth rating even though there is no change in the number of students at and above grade level or below grade level when comparing end of year to beginning of the year.

22. Arriving at the Summative Rating

23. Resolving Rating Discrepancies If a teacher receives an excellent rating in one area and unsatisfactory rating in the other, the Framework and Student Growth rating are reviewed before determining a final summative rating. If additional anomalies surface, they are addressed through the continuing review during the implementation process. 23

24. Evaluating the System Programmatic anomalies are reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee. Where necessary, corrective action is determined by the Committee. When appropriate, summative ratings affected by an identified problem may be modified in keeping with the corrective action. 24

25. Principals’ Appraisal System The evaluation system for District 65 principals mirrors the teachers’ system and also uses a student growth component.

26. Caution: Plan Ahead • This is extremely difficult and time consuming work. The committee had to do extensive research and the language was carefully and purposefully created word by word. The committee is still meeting and working two years later to resolve implementation issues. • Finding or developing appropriate assessments for all grade level, departments and areas is challenging.

27. Lessons Learned • Using two outside facilitators was valuable. Audrey Soglin worked with the union and Bill Atea with the administration. • Collect data to monitor the system for equity and consistency. Set up a data collecting system for teachers’ ratings by schools and by job positions (Math, PE, Social Workers…). • Both evaluators and teachers need extensive, up-front and ongoing training. Joint training sessions are important since both groups need to receive the same message.

28. Lessons Learned • Some type of pilot of the new system would have made the implementation process smoother and reduced teachers’ anxiety. • Because of the enormous commitment of time and energy, it is best to limit the number of new district initiatives while implementing a new appraisal system.

29. Lessons Learned • Teachers need to: • be proactive in their own evaluation; • keep careful documentation throughout the year; • use that data to defend their right to receive higher Danielson ratings. • All teachers (tenured & non-tenured) need to be prepared for, and attend, all pre and post observation conferences.

30. Lessons Learned • This revised system spotlights the evaluator. Teachers are more aware of the evaluation procedures and expect evaluators to follow those procedures in a timely manner. • The system works best in schools where administrators have positive and strong relationships with their teachers. • The student growth component of the appraisal system is more objective than the Danielson rating.

31. Concerns • The revised system has yet to capture the confidence and trust of the teachers. This has had a negative effect on teacher morale. • Tracking data, keeping documentation, attending more meetings, add to the already overburdened work load of evaluators and teachers. How do we make time for all of this?

32. Ongoing Questions • Does the system encourage cooperation rather than competition among teachers? • Does the system support and encourage the best teachers to work with the neediest of our students? • Is the revised system fair and equitable to all employees? • Do the assessments accurately measure a year of student growth, even for students with special needs (IEPs, LEP…)?