The document outlines the implications of the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) in Illinois, which mandates the evaluation of teachers and principals based on student growth metrics and professional development. It highlights key components, including the need for a PERA joint committee composed of equal representation from teachers and administrators, and the importance of aligning assessments to state standards. The document addresses potential challenges in implementation, such as the difficulties in evaluating student growth and the variations in teacher assessment methods.

1. What School Board Members Need
To Know About Student Growth
Dr. Richard Voltz
IASA Associate Director

2. In 2010, Illinois Governor Pat
Quinn signed the Performance
Evaluation Reform Act (PERA),
which changed how teachers’ and
principals’ performance is
measured in the state.

3. Important Question:
Is your district’s teacher evaluation
plan presently in the contract?

4. Two Parts
Teacher Practice Student Growth

5. Danielson Frameworks
• Danielson Frameworks for Teaching is the
PEAC recommended model, not the state
default.
• Requires many more teacher observations for
teacher evaluators.
• Observations must focus on EVIDENCE.
• Danielson Frameworks demands that teachers
ENGAGE students in their own learning.

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

7. Evaluators look for
“Engaged Learning Evidence”

8. What are the students learning?

9. Not what are the students doing.

10. PERA requires data and indicators of
student growth as a “significant
factor” for principal and teacher
evaluation.

11. Will PERA change anything?
• Main emphasis is on professional
development of both principals and teachers.
• Unions have already lessoned the impact on
RIF for teachers rated NI or U.
• Dismissal of tenured teachers is still extremely
difficult and time consuming.
• Districts may minimize student growth impact.
• Do evaluators have the time to observe and
evaluate correctly?

12. Medical Model Analogy

13. PERA Joint Committee
• Each district will convene a PERA joint
committee of equal representation of teachers
and administrators “Joint committee” means a
committee composed of equal representation
selected by the district and its teachers.

14. Collective Bargaining?
• Between teachers and administrators and not
school board.
• For student growth only.
• Once PERA Joint Committee officially starts
the parties have 180 days to develop plan OR
the plan will default to State Performance
Evaluation Model.

15. Timelines
• Chicago and RTTT Districts already in.
• Lowest 20% by September 2015
– Were notified by ISBE on 9/22/14
• All other districts by September 2016

16. Student Growth Decisions
• What percentage should student growth
count for PERA?
– Default is 50%
– Lowest is 30% (except can be 25% first two years)
• Types of assessments?
• Grouping students?
• Scoring of student growth?
• Applying student scores to teacher rating?

17. Potential Problems

18. Teachers do not agree that a Type I
or Type II assessment can be
“identified” and thus the default is
two Type III’s.

19. Type III Assessments are
teacher created.

20. All assessments SHALL be aligned
to Illinois Learning Standards and
the Common Core Standards.

21. Teachers will want the assessment
to match the content that the
teacher(s) intend to teach.

22. Midpoint review could be THE
critical point, especially early in the
implementation phase.

23. Scoring the assessments
• Include all students?
– IEP?
– ELL?
– Special Education?
– Low socio economic?
– Student attendance?
• What is the cut score?
• What percentage of students have to meet
the cut score?

24. More Questions
• How will the district
– Assess non-core areas?
– Co-teaching?
– Students who change classes as semester?
– Student attendance?
– Student transfers?

25. What are SLO’s

27. Are SLO’s required?

28. School Service Personnel are not
required to have student growth as
a component for evaluation.

29. Assigning a teacher rating as a result of
the student assessments.

30. Default Student Growth Rating Scale
• Excellent = 76% to 100% of students met the
indicated growth target
• Proficient = 51% to 75% of students met the
indicated growth target
• Needs Improvement = 25% to 50% of students
met the indicated growth target
• Unsatisfactory = Less than 25% of students
met the indicated growth target

31. Round Up Model

32. Round Down Model

33. Is there any research to support
the use of student growth for
teacher evaluation purposes?

34. Some Problems
1. Non-teacher effects may cloud the results
2. Data may be inaccurate
3. Student placement in classrooms is not
random
4. Student’s previous teachers can create a halo
(or pitchfork) effect
5. Teacher’s year-to-year scores vary widely.

35. Amount of time required for both
teachers and administrators.

36. Teachers
may/will
want all
student
growth
assessments
to be directly
related to
what they
actually
teach.

37. This process will test the TRUST and
RELATIONSHIPS between
Board/Administration and Teachers.

38. Types of Assessments
• Type I - Standardized
• Type II - School or District created and used
• Type III - Teacher made

39. Q. What happens to a school district that does not
meet the statutory deadlines?
A. Districts that are not compliance with either PERA
or SB 7 may have their recognition status reduced
pursuant to 23 Ill Admin. Code 1.20. In addition,
evaluation plans and tools that are not compliant
with the requirements of the law may undermine
dismissals (including non-renewals of nontenured
teachers), discipline, and reductions in force.

40. http://bit.ly/PERA-Resource

41. Student Growth Metrics should align
to Education Best Practices
• Standards based
• Team Teaching
• Professional Learning Communities
• Do not put teachers into competition with
each other
• Each teacher should be compared to a
standard so all could potentially receive
favorable ratings

42. RV Idea
• 30% Student Growth Rating should be based
on the following:
– 10% All school reading and math scores
– 10% Type III assessment tied to standards
– 10% Student survey of teaching based on a model
such as was reported in the MET Study

44. For additional information
contact:
Dr. Richard Voltz
rvoltz@iasaedu.org
217-741-0466
http://richvoltz.edublogs.org