1. Measuring Teacher Impact on Student Learning PEAC Discussion Document| August 20, 2010

2. 2 © The New Teacher Project, 2010 To ensure the most accurate and complete understanding of each teachers performance and development needs, an evaluation system should draw from a wide range of evidence. Potential components of an evaluation system can include: ComponentDescription Student Learning Outcomes Student learning measured in multiple ways: 1. Student growth as indicated by an applied growth model, where available; and 2. Student mastery of rigorous academic goals and standards, based upon a variety of summative assessments. Instructional Practice The extent to which a teacher executes a set of core competencies, through observations of teacher and student actions and document reviews. Professional Responsibilities The extent to which a teacher exhibits non-skill and knowledge based actions and attitudes that reflect a clearly defined set of professional responsibilities. Contribution to School Community The extent to which a teachers actions build a positive school culture for students and families.

3. 3 © The New Teacher Project, 2010 Given the current availability of data in the state, Illinois must rely on an evaluators assessment of student learning until new standardized measures are built. There are two main alternatives to consider. Option A – Goal Attainment Process oTeachers measure student growth by setting student academic goals, aligned to meaningful standards. oEvaluators confer with teachers to establish each goals degree of ambition and select the appropriate assessments for measuring progress against the goals. oTeacher evaluation is based on students progress on the established goals, as determined by an end-of-the-year evaluator review of the pre-determined assessments and their results. Option B – Review of Student Progress oStudent learning is measured through the evaluators assessment of the extent to which a teachers students have mastered or made growth toward specific standards, as indicated by performance on multiple assessments. oTeachers track student performance over time, and evaluators review ongoing student work and make judgments using a rubric.

4. 4 © The New Teacher Project, 2010 In Option A, teachers work with evaluators to set ambitious goals surrounding selected student assessments. At the beginning of the year, teachers, in collaboration with their evaluator, decide the appropriate number of goals to set for their particular classes, as well as to ensure that the goals set are acceptable (aligned to standards, challenging but attainable, and measureable). Some sample goals can include: Some sample goals can include:

5. 5 © The New Teacher Project, 2010 At the end of the year, teachers are evaluated based on goal ambition and achievement using the rubric below to assign a student learning rating for each goal.

6. 6 © The New Teacher Project, 2010 o Evaluator assesses the quality of the assessment instrument(s) used as well as the student learning outcomes to assign a rating. o Teacher tracks ongoing progress o Evaluator monitors student progress during classroom observations and through ongoing reviews of student work. o Evaluator flags any tracking and assessment issues, and helps the teacher overcome these issues In Option B, evaluators review student progress on an ongoing basis using multiple sources of information and assess progress relative to standards. o Teacher and evaluator choose a set of priority standards against which student outcomes will be measured o Teacher articulates a plan including assessments for tracking student progress toward mastery of the chosen standards o Evaluator reviews the assessment instrument(s) using a rubric and offers feedback until the assessment(s) meets expectations Beginning of Year During Year End of Year

7. 7 © The New Teacher Project, 2010 Criteria Strongly disagree =1 Disagree =2 Agree =3 Strongly Agree =4 1) Were planned outcomes ambitious and feasible? The amount and type of content and skills the teacher prioritized and taught during the year were: Aligned to approved grade/course content and end-of-year assessments. Differentiated by students starting points so that students starting near grade level could grow at least one year and students starting below grade level could grow more than one year (e.g., included remedial objectives) Allowed for a scope and sequence was appropriately paced and included time for re- teaching Applied to appropriate and increasing levels of text difficulty (if applicable) Discrete, clear, and testable Aligned to or more ambitious than IEP goals and ELL goals 2) Were the assessments good? The assessments the teacher chose, designed, and used to summatively and conclusively determine mastery were: Aligned to standards, the right level of rigor, and any external end-of-year assessments Assessed mastery of aligned content and skills accurately and reliably 3) Is the data credible? The teacher proctored and scored summative assessments such that results accurately reflect students knowledge and skills Each students trend over the course of the year made sense and was realistic There is consistency between the teachers data and separately verifiable evidence of student mastery (e.g., benchmark assessments) The evaluator must agree with statements 1 through 3 in order to agree or strongly agree with criteria 4. 4) Have the students learned an ambitious amount of material? The vast majority of the teachers students who started near grade level learned at least a years worth of material* The vast majority of the teachers students who started far behind, including mild/moderate SPED students, learned more than a years worth of material* The teachers moderate/severe students learned an ambitious amount of material including their functional, life, and vocational skills* * Note: Missing data is counted as no mastery. At the end of the year, evaluators use a rubric to evaluate teachers and assign a rating.

8. 8 © The New Teacher Project, 2010 Professional learning community meetings and feedback sessions Targeted development activities (i.e., coaching, co-teaching, etc.) Note: Additional evaluation and development activities for non-tenured teachers, developing teachers, and/or teachers in need of improvement (such as mentoring from coaches, progress check-ins with instructional managers, additional conferences, etc) are proposed in greater frequency but do not appear in the timeline above. Self- assessment and develop professional focus areas Beginning of year conference to develop evaluation plan Development Evaluation End of year summative evaluation conference Self- assessment and discuss next years professional focus areas Mid-year check-in conference, informed by all available data Self- assessment and revisit professional focus areas AugSep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Instructional Rounds (drop-ins) and/or full-period classroom observations Situational feedback conversations; student data reviews and data team meetings Regardless of the option chosen, the process must align with the overall evaluation system and should promote discussions between the teacher and evaluator on student performance and teacher professional growth.

9. 9 © The New Teacher Project, 2010 PEAC can consider the following discussion questions when selecting a process for measuring student learning outcomes. Discussion Questions: What are the strengths of each of the options? What concerns or challenges does each of these options raise? What are the implications for school-level capacity between the two options? For the kinds of support that districts will need to implement the process with fidelity? How should this align to the overall process and outcomes of the evaluation system? How might these two options differ in practice for an elementary vs. secondary level? Is there another way to go?

10. 10 © The New Teacher Project, 2010 Appendix

11. 11 © The New Teacher Project, 2010 Categories of Student Learning Measures Measure of Student LearningRating Tool UsedCurrent Status in Illinois Category 1: Student growth on state standardized tests that are developed and/or scored by ISBE (e.g., ISAT) Value-Add or Growth Measures Illinois currently assigns teacher identification numbers and unique student identifiers, but does not have a data system capable of matching individual teacher records to individual student records needed for growth measures (NCTQ 2009 Report Card) Category 2: Student performance (as measured by growth) on standardized district-wide tests that are developed and/or scored by either the district or by an external party but not by ISBE (e.g. NWEA, AP, PLAN, EXPLORE, ACT, DIBELS, ACCESS, etc.) Evaluators Assessment of Student Learning (EASL) Evaluators can take student performance on district assessments into account and can begin developing processes around this. Category 3: Other, more subjective measures of student performance that would likely be developed and/or scored at the district- or school-level (e.g., student performance on school- or teacher-selected assessments) Evaluators Assessment of Student Learning (EASL) Evaluators can take student performance on school and classroom assessments into account and can begin developing processes around this.