barrington 220 · •evaluation every year •at least 3 observations, at least 2 of which must be...

Barrington 220 Certified Staff Evaluation

8/20/13

Change in Past Practice

In 2010, Gov. Pat Quinn signed the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA), which requires all schools in Illinois to change how teachers’ and principals’ performance is measured.

What changed?

Legislation on Evaluation

Senate Bill 7

• 4 Rating Categories

Excellent

Proficient

Needs Improvement

Unsatisfactory

• Ratings May Impact Tenure

• Ratings Impact Reduction in

Force (RIF)

8/20/13 Barrington 220 Teacher Evaluation

What changes are ahead?

Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA)

• Beginning in 2016-2017: Student Performance Must Be “a Significant Factor” in the performance evaluation of teachers.

NOTE: As required by PERA, effective in 2012-2013, student performance became a significant factor for principal and assistant principal evaluation.


Senate Bill 7 & PERA

2011-12

• Yellow handbook

• Three Categories • Unsatisfactory

• Satisfactory

• Excellent

• Addition of “Excellent” rating category

2012-13

• Purple handbook

• Revised supervisory process

• Four Categories • Unsatisfactory

• Needs Improvement

• Proficient

• Excellent

2013-14

• Green handbook (coming in hard copy soon)

• Some revisions to supervisory process

• Enhanced “teacher” rubrics


Senate Bill 7 & PERA

2016-17

• Four Rating Categories

• Supervisory process will include student performance as a factor in evaluation

8/20//2013 Barrington 220 Teacher Evaluation

PERA Legislation

PERA requires districts to design and implement

performance evaluation systems that assess

teacher and principal professional skills and

incorporate measures of student growth. District

administrators shall work with Union representatives

to develop teacher evaluation systems that

incorporate student growth. Performance evaluation

systems shall be valid and reliable and help teachers

and principals to better improve student outcomes.

PERA Legislation

Teacher evaluation systems shall provide

clear descriptions of professional

excellence so everyone understands what

great teaching means. The evaluations will

be based on standards of effective practice,

with evaluators trained and pre-qualified to

conduct observations, collect evidence, and

provide helpful, timely feedback.

How has Barrington220 responded?

Supervisory Process Task Force (SPTF)

develops and monitors procedures and teacher

performance criteria to ensure a

supervisory/evaluation process that meets the

needs for all stakeholders:

• Students

• Parents/Community


• Certified Staff

• Administrators

What is the Task Force’s Job?


Design and facilitate the

effective and consistent

implementation of a

supervisory process

incorporating the four

rating categories identified

in Senate Bill 7 which

aligns with the Danielson

model, Illinois Frameworks

for Teaching and IL

Professional Teaching

Standards

PURPOSE

What are the task force’s goals?


GOALS

Provide meaningful and collaborative supervision focused

on professional growth and improving teaching and learning 1

Improve and enhance the teaching and learning process in

all areas of District 220 2

Encourage an atmosphere of reflection to support continual

refinement of practice 3

SPTF Process


Joint Development Process with BEA

Trust & Community Building

Individual Reflection & Brainstorming

Small Group Discussion

Whole Group Discussion

Shared development, review, revision

Consensus Decision Making

A Collaborative Culture of

Professional Inquiry There are no experts in the

complex act of teaching, and all

practitioners can learn from one

another. A collaborative culture of

inquiry requires that teachers and

administrators all expect the activities

they do as part of the evaluation

process to be professionally

rewarding. Leadership is required to

maintain focus on the quality of

student learning, but within that

context everyone in the school is “in it together” to enhance student

achievement, and their efforts should

be seen as working in concert. Charlotte Danielson and Thomas McGreal

Supervisory Process Task Force Membership

• Comprised of equal numbers of teachers and

administrators (11 teachers and 11

administrators)

• Members serve on task force for three years


13/14 Supervisory Process Task Force

Teachers (*Denotes standing member)

*Joe Rupsch, BEA President, Science – Prairie (13/14)

*TBD (13/14)

Janet Anderson, Library Media – BHS (11/12)

Bill Bell, Social Science – BHS (11/12)

Janet Blake, Music – Rose (13/14)

Angela DeMay, Special Services – Station (11/12)

Nirda DeRosa, Reading Resource – Sunny Hill (13/14)

Andy Nelson, Band – Station (11/12)

Georgia Nelson, Extended self-contained – Hough (13/14)

Lizzie Tueber, Social Science – Prairie (12/13)

Tony Venetico, Math – BHS (11/12)


13/14 Supervisory Process Task Force

Administrators (*Denotes standing member)

*Mary Dudek, Asst. Supt. for Human Resources (11/12)

*Linda Klobucher, Asst. Supt. for Curriculum & Staff Development (12/13)

Ben Ditkowsky, Director of Assessment (13/14)

Kimberly Foster-Thomas, Principal – Countryside (11/12)

Ty Gorman, Department Chair/Social Science – BHS (12/13)

Cindy Kalogeropoulos, Principal – Grove (13/14)

Emil Rode, Asst. Principal – Barrington High School (11/12)

Connie Simon, Asst. Supt. for Special Services (11/12)

Maria Vlahos, Department Chair/Math (13/14)

Craig Winkelman, Principal – Station (12/13)

Debbie Young, Asst. Principal – Prairie (13/14)


Teacher Supervisory Process Information

(Staff Section of Website)


17

Performance Rating Categories:

“Excellent” and “Proficient”

Excellent Proficient

The teacher consistently

demonstrates exceptional and

extensive expertise in all 4

domains. The teacher has an

exceptional level of knowledge,

skill, and strategies and

continuously and effectively

applies the knowledge, skills

and strategies in a manner that

positively and creatively

empowers all learners.

The teacher demonstrates

strong capability in all 4

domains. The teacher has

a strong level of knowledge,

skill, and strategies and

effectively applies the

knowledge, skills and

strategies in ways that

positively impact all

learners.


“Excellent” and “Proficient” (continued) Excellent Proficient

The teacher is a collaborator and a

leader who positively and

consistently contributes to the

overall growth and improvement of

district and school goals, school

culture and climate and the entire

learning community. The teacher

consistently engages in professional

growth and effectively and

strategically applies this learning to

practice in ways that impact the

entire school community.

The teacher is a collaborator

and a respected professional

among his/her colleagues and

positively contributes to the

overall growth and

improvement of district and

school goals and school

culture

and climate. The teacher

engages in professional

growth

and effectively applies this

learning to practice.


“Needs Improvement” and “Unsatisfactory”

Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory


deficiencies in one or

more of the 4 domains (2

or more descriptors

marked as “Needs

Improvement”), thus

requiring a Professional

Development Plan.


significant and

unacceptable

deficiencies in one or

more of

the 4 domains (at least 1

descriptor marked as

“Unsatisfactory”, thus

requiring

a Remediation Plan.

Non-Tenured Evaluation Plan

• Evaluation every year

• At least 3 observations, at least 2 of which must be formal

• Summative Evaluation completed by February 1

• In order to be eligible for tenure, the teacher must receive a

rating of “proficient” or “excellent” in the 4th year of probation

as well as either the 2nd or 3rd year of probation.

• May be eligible for accelerated tenure if summative ratings

are excellent in each of the first 3 years

• Rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory” will result

in recommendation for dismissal at the end of the year.

Tenured Teacher Evaluation Plan (previous rating of “Excellent “ or “Proficient”)

• Evaluation at least once

every other year

• At least 2 observations, at

least 1 of which must be

formal

• Summative Evaluation

completed by May 1

Tenured Teacher Evaluation Plan (“Needs Improvement” Cycle)

• Professional Development (PDP)

plan required

• Evaluation at least once every

year until 2 consecutive ratings

of at least “Proficient” have been

achieved

• At least 3 observations, at least

1 of which must be formal

• Summative Evaluation

completed by Feb. 1

Tenured Teacher Evaluation Plan (“Unsatisfactory” Cycle)

• Remediation Plan required

• Remediation plan mid-point

and final evaluation

required

• At least 3 observations, at

least 1 of which must be

formal

Pre-Observation Conference

• Required prior to a formal observation

• Evaluator notifies teacher of Pre-Observation Conference date/time

at least (1) week prior to Pre-Observation conference, less if waived

by teacher

• At least (2) days prior to Pre-Observation Conference, less if waived

by the evaluator, teacher completes and provides evaluator with

Pre-Observation Planning and Reflection Form

• During the pre-observation conference, the teacher and evaluator

discuss information on the Pre-Observation Planning and Reflection

Form and make recommendations for areas of focus during the

Formal Observation.

Formal Observation

• Minimum of 45minutes, or a complete lesson, or an entire class period (not to exceed 2 hours unless teacher has received a previous rating of “Needs Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory”)

• Following Formal Observation, and prior to the Post-Observation Conference, teacher provides evaluator with written reflections using the Teacher Observation Reflection Form

• Following Formal Observation, and prior to the Post-Observation Conference, evaluator provides teacher with written feedback using the Evaluator Observation Reflection Form.

• At least 1 Formal or 1 Informal observation must be completed by winter break.

Post-Observation Conference

• Required with every Formal Observation

• Evaluator will meet with teacher, within 10 teacher

work days of the Formal Observation, to discuss

observed lesson and evidence collected about

teacher’s professional practice

• Evaluator will notify teacher of the Post-

Observation Conference date/time at least (1) day

prior to Post-Observation Conference, less if

waived by teacher.

Post-Observation Conference (continued)

• During Post-Observation Conference, teacher and evaluator may discuss and reflect on other areas of professional practice aligning to the 4 domains of the Barrington 220 Performance Criteria (Rubrics), strengths and weaknesses, planning and reflecting conversations, attendance, subject competency, and any other information regarding the teacher’s performance, artifacts, etc.

• NOTE: Teachers may use the Teacher Input Form (optional) to document information and share with the evaluator. This document must be shared with evaluator in advance of the completion of the Summative Evaluation Conference.

*If, at any time during the evaluation cycle, the evaluator believes that the evidence collected to date may result in the teacher receiving a “Needs Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory” rating, he/she shall notify the teacher of that determination.

Informal Observation • Evaluator will conduct at least 1 Informal Observation during

evaluation cycle.

• No specific observation requirements and/or time guidelines are defined with the Informal Observation.

• The evaluator may provide feedback either verbally or written (electronically or in writing).

• If any points of concern from the Informal Observation will be used or documented in the Summative Evaluation, the evaluator must provide written feedback (electronically or in writing).

• At least 1 Formal or Informal Observation must be conducted by winter break.

Summative Evaluation Conference/

Summative Evaluation Form • The evaluator completes the Summative Evaluation

Form prior to the Summative Evaluation Conference, and the Summative Evaluation Form is provided to the teacher during the conference.

• The evaluator notifies teacher of the date/time of the conference at least 2 days prior to the conference, less if waived by teacher.


Summative Evaluation Form (continued) • The Summative Evaluation Conference focusses on strengths and

weaknesses of performance (noted throughout the current evaluation

cycle – since the last summative evaluation was received) aligned to the

Barrington 220 Performance Criteria (Rubrics), attendance, subject

competency,(ILSC Section 24A-5[2]) and other information regarding the

teacher’s overall performance used in determining the Summative

Evaluation Rating.

• At the Summative Evaluation Conference, the teacher and evaluator will

sign three copies of the Summative Evaluation (HR, Evaluator, Teacher).

• The teacher’s signature does not indicate agreement, but receipt of the

document.


Summative Evaluation Form (continued)

• The teacher may submit a written rebuttal, within 1 week of

receipt, to be attached to the Summative Evaluation. A copy of

this rebuttal needs to be submitted to both the evaluator and

the HR Department.

• This rebuttal will be attached to the Summative Evaluation and will

be placed in the teacher’s personnel file.

• NOTE: The Summative Evaluation Conference and Post

Observation Conference are two separate and important

processes and not intended to be combined.

Professional Development Plan (PDP) (For tenured teachers who receive a rating of “Needs Improvement”)

• Within 30 school days after completion of the rating of Needs

Improvement for a tenured teacher, the PDP is developed by the

evaluator in consultation with teacher. (Non-tenured teachers who

receive a Needs Improvement rating will be recommended for

dismissal and therefore do not go through the PDP process.)

• The PDP takes into account the teacher’s professional responsibilities.

• The PDP includes evidence of progress/achievements of goal(s), as

well as supports the district will provide to address the performance

areas in need of improvement.

• At the conclusion of the evaluation cycle, the evaluator provides

feedback to the teacher regarding the progress on the PDP, as well as

overall performance, verbally in the Summative Evaluation Conference

and written in the Summative Evaluation Form.

Professional Development Plan (PDP) (For tenured teachers who receive a rating of “Needs Improvement”)

• If a teacher receives a “Need Improvement”

rating at the conclusion of the evaluation cycle,

he/she will be evaluated annually until 2

consecutive ratings of at least “Proficient” are

achieved.

• There is no specific time limit for the PDP

process.

Remediation Plan (For tenured teachers who receive a rating of “Unsatisfactory”)

• Within thirty (30) school days after the completion of an evaluation rating of “Unsatisfactory”, development and commencement of a Remediation Plan of ninety (90) school days is provided.

• The evaluator completes a mid-point and final evaluation during and at the end of the evaluation period.

• Each evaluation shall assess the teacher’s performance during the time period since the prior evaluation.

• The last evaluation shall include an overall evaluation of the teacher’s performance during the remediation period.

Remediation Plan (continued) (For tenured teachers who receive a rating of “Unsatisfactory”)

• The Remediation Plan will require the teacher to work with a

consulting teacher.

• The consulting teacher is selected by the evaluator. The

consulting teacher has at least 5 years of experience,

familiarity with the assignment, and an “Excellent” rating on

the most recent evaluation.

• The consulting teacher provides advice to the teacher rated

“Unsatisfactory” on how to improve teaching skills and

successfully complete the Remediation Plan.

Remediation Plan (continued) (For tenured teachers who receive a rating of “Unsatisfactory”)

• If the teacher has corrected the performance deficiencies

AND receives a rating of “Proficient” or “Excellent” on the final

evaluation, he/she is returned to the regular evaluation cycle.

• If, at the conclusion of the remediation period, the teacher has

not corrected the performance deficiencies, the teacher may

be subject to dismissal.

Constructive Discussion Process • If a concern arises outside of the Formal Supervisory

Process, the Constructive Discussion Form may be used.

• The teacher will be given the opportunity to meet with the evaluator to discuss the concern and provide additional information/artifacts if desired.

• Follow-up regarding concern(s) must occur within 4 weeks.

Barrington 220 Forms • Pre-Observation Planning and Reflection Form

• Evaluator Observation Reflection Form

• Teacher Observation Reflection Form

• Constructive Discussion Form (optional)

• Summative Evaluation Form

• Professional Development Plan (PDP) Form

• Remediation Plan Form

• Teacher Input Form (optional)

Dismissal/Non-Renewal

and Reduction in Force of

Tenured and Non-Tenured Teachers

Illinois Reform Legislation

Non-Renewal and Reduction and Force (RIF)

with the Implementation

of the New Reform Legislation

What has not changed?

What has changed?

Dismissal/Non-Renewal of non-

tenured teachers HAS NOT

changed.

Reduction in Force (RIF) of

tenured and non-tenured teachers

HAS changed.

Laws on Dismissal/Non-Renewal of

Non-Tenured teachers HAVE NOT changed.

Dismissal/Non-Renewal of non-tenured teachers, for a variety of reasons, (i.e., enrollment, staffing

needs, program changes, performance concerns, etc.)

continues just as in the past.

Effective beginning

in 2012-2013:

Tenured and non-tenured

full time teachers

will be placed onto a

Sequence of Honorable

Dismissal List (SOD List) each spring.

Beginning in 2012-13:

Reduction in Force (RIF) is no longer based solely on seniority as in the past.

If a RIF is necessary, the RIF will be based primarily on evaluation ratings which are converted to a

Group Number of 1, 2, 3 or 4 and communicated each spring on the Sequence of Honorable

Dismissal List (SOD List).

Sequence of Honorable Dismissal List (SOD):

Full time non-tenured

and tenured teachers…

…are placed into one of 4 groups each spring based on current position category and qualifications.

*NOTE: By law, part time non-tenured teachers are not included on the Sequence of Honorable Dismissal List, and therefore are not placed into any of the 4 groups.

New legislation requires districts to…

…notify teachers of evaluation ratings and legal

qualifications (certification/endorsements) with

an annual written notification each spring.

…provide teachers the opportunity to object to

accuracy of information in the letter.

New legislation requires

districts to… …categorize teachers by current position,

and group teachers into one of four groups

(Group 1, 2, 3, or 4) based on evaluation

ratings. (This is called the Sequence of

Honorable Dismissal List or SOD list.)

…post the Sequence of Honorable Dismissal

List (SOD list).

Note: a numerical coding system is used to

increase confidentiality.

Illinois School Districts are

required to…

…consider and determine dismissal/non-renewal of

non-tenured teachers based on enrollment, staffing

needs, program changes, performance concerns,

etc. (just as in the past)

…consider and determine reductions-in-force (RIF).

…carry out Reductions in Force (RIF) based on the

groupings with a teacher in Group 1 honorably

dismissed first, followed by Groups 2, 3, and 4.

Illinois School Code allows districts to

annually review the definitions of the

4 groups and alter the definitions.

The Barrington 220 Senate Bill 7 (SB7) RIF Joint

Committee

determined

Alternate Rules for Group 4

for 2012-2013

(as allowed by Illinois School Code).

Who is the SB7 RIF Joint

Committee, and

what do they do? *Group made up of equal numbers

of the BEA and administration

*May agree to alter the rules of the

groupings (rules for Group 1, 2, 3,

and 4)

Illinois Definition of Groups on

Sequence of Honorable Dismissal List

Group 1

Non-tenured teachers who have

not received an evaluation rating

Illinois Definition of Groups on

Sequence of Honorable Dismissal List

Group 2

Tenured and non-tenured teachers

who have received a “Needs

Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory”

evaluation rating on either of their

last 2 most recent evaluations.

Illinois Definition of Groups on Sequence

of Honorable Dismissal List

Group 3:

Tenured and non-tenured teachers who received at least “Satisfactory” or

“Proficient” ratings on both of their last 2 most recent evaluations (unless the 2 most

recent evaluations are prior to 2011-2012 when excellent became an option).

Barrington 220 Definition of Group 4

(used for 2012-2013)

TENURED teachers who fall into

one of the following categories:

* Received “Excellent” in 12/13 and “Satisfactory” on the previous evaluation

*Received “Excellent” in 11/12 and “Satisfactory” on the previous evaluation

*Received “Satisfactory” in 10/11 and “Satisfactory” on the previous evaluation (had not yet received a summative rating in 11/12 or 12/13)

NON-TENURED Teachers who received “Excellent” in 12/13 AND “Excellent” in 11/12.

(This definition, developed by Barrington 220 Senate Bill 7 RIF Joint Committee, takes into consideration that a rating of

“Excellent” was not available in Barrington until 2011/2012 and that tenured teachers are evaluated every other year while non-

tenured teachers are evaluated every year.)

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT AND

UNSATISFACTORY

A teacher who has received a rating of

“Needs Improvement” or “Unsatisfactory”

on one or both of the two (2) most recent

summative evaluations does not qualify

for placement into Group 3 or Group 4.

*Illinois Definition of Group 4

Tenured and non-tenured teachers who received

“Excellent” ratings on both of their last 2 evaluations, or

received “Excellent” ratings on 2 of their last 3

evaluations and a “Satisfactory” or “Proficient”

rating on the third.

*With the Alternate Group 4 Definition for 12/13, (because

Barrington’s Evaluation Ratings did not include “Excellent”

until 2011/2012), the Illinois School Code definition for Group

4 did not apply in Barrington for the 2012/2013 school year.

The Barrington 220 RIF Joint Committee will revisit the rules

and definitions that will apply for the Groups for the 13-14

school year by Feb. 1, 2014.

In the event of a RIF

in any one position category:

*A RIF of a teacher in Group 1 would be first.

*If there is not a teacher from the position category in Group 1, we would look to Group 2 for the RIF.



NOTE: RIF’s from Group 1 are determined by the Board. RIF’s from Group 2 are based on evaluation ratings, and RIF’s in Groups 3 and Group 4 are based on seniority within the group.

Sample of What is Posted:

Sequence of Honorable Dismissal List (SOD)

Early Childhood

Group 1

1234

Group 2

Group 3

4321

5678

Group 4

8765

Each numerical code

represents a teacher in that

group.

High School Math

Group 1

Group 2

1346

1122

Group 3

3351

2765

Group 4

3332

What is each teacher

required to do?

* Read and review the information provided in the annual

Sequence of Honorable Dismissal written communication to

verify and confirm accuracy.

* If you agree that all of the information in the communication is

correct, you will indicate agreement by following requirement

for the “agree”.

* If there is a belief that the information in the communication is

not correct, you will need to “disagree”, by following the

requirement for “disagree” by the date required.

* Failure to reply by the required date will result in the district

using the information in the communication for its staff

planning and RIF determination with no other opportunity

afforded during the school year to correct any data believed to

be incorrect.

Supervisory Process is Aligned to

School Code/State Laws Nothing within the Barrington 220 Supervisory Process or this presentation is intended to conflict with the School Code/statutes. In the event the Barrington 220 procedures are in conflict with the School Code/statutes, the School Code/statutes will override the procedures and requirements in the Barrington 220 Supervisory Process.

Barrington 220 Evaluation Rubrics

• What are the qualities/characteristics of an

“Excellent” or “Proficient” teacher in Barrington 220?

• Rigorous and high quality standards

• Considers multiple stakeholder viewpoints

• Includes 4 Domains

• Planning/Preparation

• Learning Environment

• Instruction

• Professional Responsibilities

• 6 Rubrics Based on Roles

Teacher Evaluation

Every teacher being

evaluated

receives a summative rating of either:


Excellent

Proficient

Needs

Improvement

Unsatisfactory

Ongoing Review of the Supervision

and Evaluation Process

The Supervisory Process Task Force will

continue to monitor and revise, as necessary,

the supervision and evaluation process in

order to continually enhance and improve the

process…

Rubrics and Indicators

Observation process, forms, etc.


What Happens Next?


2013 – 2015

Investigate, research and develop meaningful options for incorporating student academic performance into evaluation

2016 – 2017

Implement supervisory process with student academic performance component as a factor in the evaluation rating (similar to principals and assistant principals evaluations)

Contact Mary Dudek

[email protected]

with questions regarding

the information contained in

this presentation.


mailto:[email protected]

barrington 220 · •evaluation every year •at least 3 observations, at least 2 of which must be...

Documents