Principal & Teacher Evaluation in Illinois: Past, Present & Future 10/18/2011 1

Transcription

1 Principal & Teacher Evaluation in Illinois: Past, Present & Future 10/18/2011 1

2 Principal Evaluation: Why does it matter? Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to student learning.* Leadership has the greatest influence on teacher selection, retention, and mobility. Effective leaders:* Balance stability and change Balance direction and influence Develop and support others Redesign their organizations to improve effectiveness *Wahlstrom et. al. (2010) 10/18/2011 2

3 Principal Evaluation: Leadership Strands Leading and Managing Systems Change Improving Teaching and Learning Building & Maintaining Collaborative Relationships Ethical & Professional Leadership Managing School Operations Living the Mission, Vision, and Belief Leading for Results 3

4 Teacher Evaluation: Why does it matter? Studies show that a teacher s influence on student achievement is 20 times greater than any other variable, including class size or poverty. (Fallon, 2003). 3 years of a good teacher increases student learning but three years with a poor teacher effectively decreases it. (Bembry et. al., 1998). Good teachers raise the achievement levels of their colleagues. (Sass et. al., 2010). A teacher evaluation system that uses student growth and principal observations can actually increase teachers especially weaker teachers ability to affect student achievement. (Taylor & Tyler, 2010). 10/18/2011 4

5 Teacher Evaluation: Why we needed a new system Inflated ratings currently provide little useful feedback for effective professional development. A high majority (>95%) of teachers are typically rated as the top designation (usually excellent) on the evaluation scale. There is a disconnect between current teachers evaluations and student achievement. 10/18/2011 5

6 How did we get there? In 2009, President Obama announced Race to the Top. Race to the Top awarded federal grants to states based on progress in certain key areas: standards and assessments, data systems, effective teachers and leaders, and turning around under-performing schools.

7 How did we get there? Race to the Top came at a good time for Illinois. We had already been working on reforming education but with little success and not much cohesiveness. Race to the Top provided an added incentive to work quickly, and as a result, education stakeholders agreed to come together to pass reforms.

8 How did we get there? Over the next 15 months, we passed several reform laws addressing significant issues. In 2009, we established a longitudinal data system to track student progress from grades P-20, strengthening principal preparation programs, and expanding the charter school program in Illinois.

9 How did we get there? The next item on our agenda was reforming teacher and principal evaluations. Race to the Top placed a high priority on the area of teachers and leaders. The category was worth 58 points on the grant application. The legislation we were working on was going to add 30 points to our score, so we were able to remain focused.

10 How did we get there? Even without considering Race to the Top, statistics indicated that Illinois previous evaluation system was ineffective. Under the previous system, 92% of teachers were rated excellent and less than 1% were rated unsatisfactory.

11 How did we get there? We needed a system that was more quantifiable and that held principals and teachers more accountable. We decided to pursue legislation that tied evaluations to student progress, allowing us to see how principals and teachers make a difference in classrooms and schools.

12 How did we get there? In the fall of 2009, work began on improving the principal evaluation process in Illinois with a collaborative effort among a variety of stakeholders including professional organizations, labor unions, Regional Offices of Education, and ISBE. 10/18/

13 How did we get there? Key stakeholders: Illinois State Board of Education, Advance Illinois, the Governor s Office, Chicago Public Schools, School Management Alliance, IEA, IFT, AFSCME, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, school board administrators, principals association and a variety of other education reform groups.

14 How did we get there? At the end of 2009, nearly everyone was on board with the bill. The major sticking point was with labor unions, who wanted to exempt all public employee performance evaluations from the Freedom of Information Act.

15 How did we get there? We tried to address the unions concerns, but the bill was moving quickly through the process and we needed to pass it before the Race to the Top application deadline. In the end, the bill was passed with the unions as opponents. It was agreed that I would carry a bill later during session that exempted public employee performance evaluations from FOIA. I sponsored and passed that bill in April 2010.

16 Performance Evaluation Reform Act We passed the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) on January 13, 2010 and the governor signed the bill on January 15. The bill established a new performance evaluation system that placed a higher priority on student progress for evaluation educators and established a system of remediation for teachers who receive low ratings on their evaluations.

17 PERA Performance Evaluation Reform Act (Public Act ) Approved by Governor Pat Quinn: 1/15/2010 Sponsors: (Senate) Lightford, Meeks, Martinez, Collins, Delgado, Jones, Hunter. (House) Chapa LaVia, Ford, Washington, Froehlich, Hernandez. Summary: Incorporates student growth into teacher and principal performance ratings as a significant factor (to be defined by ISBE in a collaborative rule-making process) and provides for a model evaluation plan that uses student growth at minimum 30% of the overall rating. Local control can negotiate a higher percentage than the state model. Establishes requirements for evaluation frequency and transparency, and phases in implementation gradually. Includes a review of early implementations to inform later implementation. 10/18/

18 PERA: Changing principal and teacher evaluation Use student growth as a significant factor in rating performance. Align with research-based standards and professional competencies. Take into consideration the principal s specific duties, responsibilities, management, and competence. Specify strengths and weaknesses with supporting reasons. Require all evaluators to be statecertified. A revised rating scale: Excellent Proficient Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory 10/18/

19 PERA: Changing principal and teacher evaluation Each principal must be evaluated annually prior to March 1 for annual contracts and the last year of a multi-year contract. Each non-tenured teacher must be evaluated annually. Each tenured teacher must be evaluated at least once every two years. All teachers receiving ratings of less than proficient will be evaluated annually, regardless of tenure status. 10/18/

20 PEAC: The Performance Evaluation Advisory Council PEAC is charged with developing a State Model for teacher and principal evaluation. 10/18/

21 PEAC: Performance Evaluation Advisory Council PEAC members appointed in 2010 included: Teachers Administrators Researchers Representatives from higher education Representatives of state agencies, including ISBE Representatives from teacher unions Interested stakeholders 10/18/

22 PEAC: Performance Evaluation Advisory Council The Council began meeting monthly in March, 2010 All meetings are open and any interested person(s) are invited to attend Meeting dates and locations Up-to-date information regarding the progress of PEAC s work List of committee members Resources 10/18/

23 PEAC: Timelines By 9/1/2012 Principal evaluation written plan Teacher evaluation written plan Evaluators trained in state model Principals evaluated under new guidelines School Improvement Grant (SIG) teachers evaluated with district adopted model Chicago Public Schools must incorporate student growth as a significant factor in the evaluation for all teachers in 300 CPS schools. 10/18/

24 PEAC: Timelines (continued) By 9/1/2013: By 9/1/2014: By 9/1/2015: By 9/1/2016: Remaining CPS teachers evaluated with district-adopted model* Research-based study issued assessing validity & reliability of state model Lowest performing 20% of remaining school districts incorporate their district-adopted model.* All other school districts incorporate their district-adopted model.* 10/18/ * Or state model

25 What does this mean for school districts? Start using the new ratings: Excellent Proficient Needs improvement Unsatisfactory Adapt or adopt the model: Districts that cannot cooperatively decide on a model within 180 days must adopt the state model. 10/18/

26 What does this mean for school districts? Administrators, teachers, and union reps must agree on an evaluation model that meets legislative requirements Each district must identify evaluators Evaluators must be trained and certified Districts provide additional training and certification specific to their own evaluation system if necessary 10/18/

27 Negotiation Guidelines for Districts & Unions School districts and their unions may, at any time, establish the joint committee referenced in the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA). 10/18/

28 Negotiation Guidelines for Districts & Unions The Joint Committee may engage in planning sessions that do not constitute a first meeting as that term is used in PERA. Indeed, the Illinois State Board of Education recommends that the Joint Committee be established and begin engaging in planning sessions as soon as possible 10/18/

29 Negotiation Guidelines for Districts & Unions That said, ISBE does not recommend the Joint Committee having its first meeting until the administrative rules regarding PERA evaluations for teachers and principals have been promulgated and the State Board of Education has developed the default template for those evaluations. 10/18/

30 Essential Elements of Effective Evaluations Effective performance evaluations: Center on student learning Align with district and school goals Inform professional development Focus on school & student improvement Include both formative and summative measures Include self-assessment and reflection Add value to principal s/teacher s professional life Are flexible and context-sensitive 10/18/

31 Principal Evaluation: Focus To determine how effective the principal is: as a capacity builder in facilitating meaningful and productive systems change to support of student achievement. 10/18/

32 Teacher Evaluation: Framework PEAC s Teacher Evaluation Subcommittee is customizing Charlotte Danielson s Framework for Professional Practice according to specific Illinois needs with guidance from the recently revised Illinois Professional Teaching Standards. 10/18/

33 Teacher Evaluation: Danielson Framework Identifies research-based aspects of teacher responsibilities that promote student learning Seeks to define what teachers should know and be able to do Divides teaching responsibilities into 22 components, clustered into 4 domains: Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Domain 3: Instruction Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities 10/18/

34 Teacher Evaluation: Danielson Framework Each Component has: Rationale and Explanation Documentation Elements with Levels of Performance Common themes across domains: Equity Cultural Sensitivity High Expectation Developmental Appropriateness Accommodating Individual Needs Appropriate Use of Technology 10/18/

35 Teacher Evaluation: Danielson Framework (Example) 10/18/

36 Student growth: What is it? How is it measured given our resources? What exactly is meant by significant factor? How much weight should be placed on each measure? Suggested answers to these questions will be recommended to the State Superintendent by the PEAC group of stakeholders using: Legislation as it is written Current research Consultation with experts 10/18/

37 Student growth: Multiple measures Student growth will be defined by multiple measures in multiple ways. This is still very much under discussion. Assessments across a set of subjects can be used and these assessments can be of different types: Standardized (these include state, district, and commercial assessments and allow for broad comparisons) Classroom measures (these are intended to be more closely linked with the material taught but can be developed at the district, school, or team level or by individual teachers) The measures may also be used at a combination of different levels: district, school, grade, subject, and individual teacher. 10/18/

38 What s next? Our reform efforts led to even more dramatic education reform in Illinois. This year, I led negotiations on Senate Bill 7, which will increase students exposure to quality teachers. That bill was negotiated among many of the same key players that participated in PERA negotiation.

39 Senate Bill 7 Senate Bill 7 places a higher priority on performance rather seniority as it relates to staffing decisions. The bill ends the practice of last hired, first fired It doesn t allow seniority to protect poorlyperforming teachers, and rewards teachers who have proven themselves as effective.

40 How You Can Implement Reform Politics: Determine who the key stakeholders are. Participation: Bring everyone to the table and encourage collaboration. Process: Form special committees to study the issue and report to the larger assembly. Have a good negotiator. Policy: Be willing to compromise and look at what works and what doesn t in other states.

41 True Impact The reforms we ve passed in Illinois are not an ending but a beginning. Reforming education is a game-changer that will benefit our children the most, which is all of our goal.