Transcript Document

State Evaluations
and Negotiations
Steven Kellner Ed.D.
Director of Professional Learning
Township High School District 214
Arlington Heights, IL
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.
New Definition of Evaluator
1. Administrator who participates in ISBE approved
in-service training on the evaluation of certified
personnel
2. Other individuals who participate in the ISBE
approved in-service training on the evaluation of
certified personnel
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
A Case Study from Township High School District 214
CHANGING PRACTICE FOR
CERTIFIED EVALUATIONS
From
To
•Evaluation as a Task
•Professional Development
to truly help grow our
teachers
From
To
• An infrequent, inconsistent and
ineffective system with a “gotcha”
stigma.
• A new Individualized Professional
Development System to help
support the growth of our
teachers
From
To
•Excellent, Satisfactory,
Unsatisfactory
•Excellent, Proficient,
Needs Improvement,
Unsatisfactory
From
To
•Summative Evaluations
due in Late May
•Summative Evaluations
due February 1st
From
To
•Single-evaluator
observations only
•Multiple-evaluator
observations and
Walkthroughs
D214 Plan
State
Model Plan
Understanding Differences
State
D214
•Tenured Staff Evaluated
in Isolation
•Two-year cycle of
continuous improvement
•Abridged
State Danielson Rubric
•Complete
D214 Danielson Rubric
•Only Evaluators
State Observe
•Peer Observation
D214 & Feedback
State
D214
• Using Student Data as at
least 30% of Certified
Evaluations for each teacher
• Including building-wide
Student Data for 2016-17
How will these changes
impact your teachers?
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.
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.
Time, Timelines and
Process
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?
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).
Administrative Evaluations
• State Requirements:
– Align with Illinois Standards for Principal
Evaluations
– Use of student data
– Use of formal observation protocols
– March 1st deadline
Administrative Evaluations
• Key Considerations:
– Developing a comprehensive rubric
– Similar student data targets
– Making observations meaningful
– Parallel structure to certified staff evaluation