Race to the Top Update Illinois Education Association Representative Assembly March 2010

Why engage? State was going to apply Full court press when Governor’s office and legislators became involved Funding allies involved Legislation was going to be passed

State Data Districts signed on: 366 IEA unions signing on MOU 1: 181 IEA signing on MOU 2: 8

State Map representing Participation Red dots represent Union and District Sign on MOU 2

National Data 41 states applied in Phase One 31 had state affiliate signatures The reason state affiliates did not sign on: ◦Didn’t see the plan ◦Were not involved in conversation about development ◦Contained reforms they did not agree with: performance pay ◦Collective bargaining rights were not protected

Reasons for Support Needed resources to participating schools and districts Collective bargaining rights protected and respected Collaborative process in the development and collaborative structures built into plan Recognition of the need to improve education and to be part of the process

Finalists for Funding 16 states are finalists and participated in the review panel interviews 11 of the finalists had state affiliate support 3 states had the state association represented on the review team: Colorado, Delaware, and Illinois

RTTT Performance Evaluation Legislation Legislation consistent with Priority One and IEA’s public comments posted and approved by the Board of Directors. Consistent with NEA’s recommendations for accountability

Key Components Student growth will be used to inform teacher evaluation ◦Multiple measures must be used ◦ISAT and Prairie State cannot be used Joint labor/management Committee to determine substance not just process If joint committee cannot reach agreement – management cannot impose – areas of disagreement default to state plan

More Performance Evaluation Legislation All evaluators must pass an independently developed pre-qualified assessment before they can complete evaluations. All evaluators must be trained. Peer evaluation is allowed if union agrees.

Important Safeguards An outside study must be completed on the effectiveness of using student growth in evaluation by Full implementation cannot occur unless there is sustainable and adequate funding written into law. ISBE fulfills all of its responsibilities which include a climate survey at the building level to assess working conditions

More Safeguards Rules will be worked out by the Performance Evaluation Advisory Committee which includes union and teacher representation Will address student characteristics such as: ◦ELL ◦Attendance ◦Mobility ◦Special Education

Timelines Finalists were interviewed on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week States will be notified sometime the first week of April. Phase 2 applications will be due in June.