This document discusses 6 key issues that school administrators will face regarding teacher evaluations under PERA and SB7: 1. Collecting bargaining implications and determining reduction in force lists based on teacher performance ratings and seniority rather than just seniority. 2. Using student growth measures, which have many challenges and pitfalls unless implemented carefully through student learning objectives. 3. Determining how many teachers will be rated "Excellent" given the increased rigor of evaluations. 4. Deciding which domains and components of teacher frameworks count the most towards final ratings. 5. Finding sufficient time to conduct the numerous required observations, conversations and meetings. 6. Quantifying how professional practice and student growth

1. What does PERA and SB7 mean for
school administrators daily work?
Dr. Richard Voltz
IASA Associate Director

2. Six
Issues
with
PERA &
SB7

3. 1. Collective Bargaining
Implications

7. New way to figure RIF List

11. Issues

12. With declining state and federal
resources, schools will be reducing
personnel. SB7 requires certified staff
to be reduced via combination of
teacher performance rating and
seniority. No longer will the most
senior teacher be kept, the best
teacher will be retained if the
administrator does the performance
evaluation correctly.

13. Reducing a veteran teacher by
performance ranking will
effectively terminate that teacher’s
career.

14. Has your district trained teachers
in this new professional practice
paradigm?

15. Has your joint committee started
to discuss how your district will
handle student growth?

16. Are you prepared to defend your
teacher performance rating in
court?

17. Even if your district has not
approved a professional practice
model start using the Danielson
Domains and Components when
you observe teaching.

18. 2. Using Student Growth

19. Value Added Pitfalls
• Non-teacher effects may cloud the results
• Data may be inaccurate
• Student placement in classrooms is not
random
• Students’ previous teachers can create a halo
(or pitchfork) effect
• Teachers’ year-to-year scores vary widely
Source: November 2012 Educational Leadership Journal: Goodwin & Miller

20. Other Challenges
• Majority of teachers do not teach in tested
subject areas or grades and as a result
standardized student achievement data is not
available
• Researchers do not agree on a valid and
reliable way to measure student growth
• This decision will jeopardize a teacher’s career

21. SLO’s

22. SLO’s
• Required Type III student growth assessment
if Joint Committee cannot agree
• Need baseline data
• Determine who to assess
• Determine rigorous target
• Aligned with CCSS or district curriculum
• Determine assessment
• Compare student growth with target

23. Issues

24. What do you know about the
various student growth models?

25. What do your teachers know about
the various student growth
models?

26. What will your role be for the Joint
Committee that will be making
these decisions?

27. 3. Who will be rated
Excellent/Distinguished?

28. say?
What does the

30. Evidence is…
• What the teacher says and does.
• What the students say and do.
• Can it be counted?
• Can it be timed?
• Can the teaching be summarized accurately
using only evidence-based words?

31. How many “Excellent”
teachers does your school
have?

32. How many informal and
formal observations will
you make to record
evidence for a valid
summative judgment?

33. How many observations will it take
to defend your rating in a dismissal
hearing?

34. Teacher
evaluations
typically look
like this...

35. Each teacher teaches 900 lessons per
year, 1,800 for two years

36. Instead it
should
look like
this.

37. It needs to look more like a Gallop Poll,
random and 10 times per cycle.

38. 10 Observations
per cycle
1. Sept. 2012 – Informal
(focused on transition
& student discipline)
2. Nov. 2012 – Informal
(focused on Engaged
Learning)
3. Dec. 2012 - Formal
4. March 2013 – Informal
(focuses on
Questioning)
5. May 2013 – Informal
(focused on
assessment)
6. August 2013 –
Informal (respect &
rapport)
7. October 2013 - Formal
8. January 2014 –
Informal (culture for
learning)
9. March 2014 – Informal
(communicating)
10.April 2014 - Final
Summative Formal

39. 4. Do all
Domains/Components
Count the same?

40. Shall quantify the relative importance of
each portion of the framework to the
final professional practice rating.

41. The key concept with
Danielson Method is
Engaged Learning

42. Danielson definition of
engaged learning…
The student is
intellectually engaged in
the work.

43. How do you record evidence of
student engagement?

44. Make a practice of asking
students what they are
learning when you
conduct informal or
formal observations.
Record these answers.

45. Issues

46. How do your teachers define
engaged learning?

47. What Domain/Components of FFT
do you think are most important?
Why?

48. Will you be able to record evidence
for all 22 components? What if you
do not have evidence for a
component?

49. Do all teacher evaluators in your
district agree which components
are most important?

50. 5. Finding the time to
conduct the observations,
reflective conversations
and summative meetings.

51. Time

52. If you schedule it, it gets…

53. Electronics

56. YouTube Video for
iPad Teacher Observation App
http://bit.ly/IASAapp

57. Who will do the
traditional management
work of the principal?

59. What was the public
interested in immediately
following the Sandy Hook
shootings?

61. Or

63. 6. Determining the
Summative Rating

64. The Joint Committee
“Shall quantify the
relative importance of
each portion of the
framework to the final
professional practice
rating.”

66. Example 1
Teacher A is rated Proficient for professional practice.
Teacher A receives a student growth rating of NI.
Professional practice rating: (3 X .70)= 2.1
Student growth rating: (2 X .30)=.6
Overall rating is 2.7; Teacher is Proficient.
Excellent >3
Proficient = 2.0 to 2.9
Needs Improvement = 1.0 to 1.9
Unsatisfactory <1

68. On Going….

70. This is important because…
• Teacher needs fundamental due process
because of PERA and SB 7.
• Reduction In Force rules have changed.
• Illinois now requires four summative ratings
based on research-based rubric.
• It will be much harder to earn top rating.
• A teacher who is rated “Proficient” could
lose their career.

71. Collaborate

72. Danielson & IASA
Video

73. My Predictions

74. Use of Video for Teacher
Observations

75. Peer Evaluators to provide
input

76. Student Input