Student Growth. Section
50.210(a) repeats the statutory requirement of Section 24A-7 of the School Code
that the State Performance Evaluation Model provide that student growth
comprise 50 percent of the teacher's final performance evaluation rating.
The
50 percent threshold must be used by any district whose joint committee could
not agree in its performance evaluation plan on the percentage of student
growth to be used.
Assessments. Section
50.210(b) uses a Student Learning Objective (SLO) process as the mechanism to
identify assessments that are appropriate for and collaboratively chosen by the
teacher being evaluated and his or her qualified evaluator. Additionally, the
SLO process is a supportable process to use to identify assessments to measure
student growth of students with certain characteristics (e.g., special
education placement, English language learners, low-income populations) to
ensure that the assessments used to evaluate a teacher best measure the impact
that the teacher has on these students’ academic achievement (see Section 50.210(c)).
The SLO process begins with the identification of two student
learning goals (along with growth expectations for each) that are specific to
the teacher's content/course of instruction and/or grade level of students
taught. In response to concerns of IEA/IFT, the teacher being evaluated is
given the opportunity to suggest four SLOs, which include the learning goal, growth
expectation and assessment, to be considered for measuring the teacher's impact
on student growth. The teacher and his or her qualified evaluator then
collaboratively choose the two (or one, if only one assessment was the subject
of joint committee disagreement) to be incorporated into the teacher's
evaluation plan.
The learning goal or goals to be included in the evaluation plan
must align to school wide or district wide initiatives or the school
improvement plan, as those initiatives or goals relate to the teacher's content
area of instruction. Further, any assessment chosen must validly measure
student learning over time that is specific to the learning goal that each
identified. The assessment chosen cannot be one about which the joint committee
already disagreed, which will prevent the teacher/evaluator from becoming mired
in the same issues that forced them to default to the State Performance
Evaluation Model initially.
There is no prohibition, however, against using an assessment for
which there was agreement of the joint committee if that assessment is
appropriate for measuring student progress relative to the identified learning
goal. Finally, in consideration of suggestions from both PEAC and IEA/IFT, the
proposed rules require that a review of the growth expectations occur at the
midpoint of the evaluation cycle to ensure that those expectations remain
appropriate. If not, the growth expectations should be modified as may be
necessary.
By way of supporting understanding of the SLO process, new Section
50.220 lists the minimum information that must be assembled as part of the
process. While IEA/IFT encouraged the State Board to require school districts
to use an agency-developed template as they progress through the SLO process,
staff believe that flexibility is essential so that the SLO process adequately
addresses the individual needs and goals of the teachers, school or district. A
sample template will be posted on the agency's website. It may be used as is or
adapted by school districts, as applicable to their particular circumstances.
While the SLO process was developed as a tool for classroom
teachers to use for selecting and/or developing classroom assessments as part
of the implementation of balanced assessment systems, its application to the
performance evaluation process will help both the teacher and evaluator
identify meaningful goals for student learning, encourage collaboration and
understanding, and work to improve instructional effectiveness by monitoring
student and teacher progress toward the learning goal. As noted above, its use
for evaluating the impact teachers have on the academic growth of certain
student populations with diverse learning needs helps to tailor evaluation
systems to more effectively assess the performance of those teachers.
The proposed rule at Section 50.210(b)(4)
also recognizes that agreement may not be reached between the teacher and his
or her evaluator about the learning goal, growth expectations and/or
assessments to be used to measure student growth. The proposed rule provides
two options for making a final determination, which are dependent upon whether
agreement is not reached on one or both SLOs. In the former situation when only
one SLO is in dispute, the decision-making is given to another qualified
evaluator in the district who is chosen collaboratively by the individuals who
could not agree.
Additionally, specific timelines for action are proposed in
the rule so that the student growth portion of the evaluation plan can be
implemented in a timely fashion. In the latter situation when both SLOs are in
dispute, the teacher chooses one of the SLOs to include and his or her
qualified evaluator chooses the other SLO, with their decisions being final.
Rating Scale. The joint
committee also must identify the ratings to be used for student growth, if
those ratings are different than the categories of "unsatisfactory",
"needs improvement", "proficient" and "excellent"
required under Section 24A-5 of the School Code for the final performance
evaluation rating assigned. If agreement is not reached in this regard, a
school district under the State Performance Evaluation Model would be required
to use the Section 24A-5 categories and apply them on the basis of the
percentage of students who have met the growth target for the learning goal.
(See Section 50.210(d) for specific percentage ranges.)
Performance
Evaluation Rating. Although not specific to student growth and therefore, not
required to be included in the State Performance Evaluation Model, Section
50.230 sets forth the performance evaluation ratings to be used that consider
the 50/50 split that the performance evaluation rating will have between
professional practice rating and student growth rating. When agreement is not
reached in this regard, the school district would use the applicable
combination of the professional practice rating and student growth rating set
forth in Section 50.230 to determine a final rating of "unsatisfactory",
"needs improvement", "proficient" and "excellent"
to be assigned.
Pages 129-131:
Re: “Student Growth” by Laura Chapman
ReplyDelete“Negative growth actually exists in the lexicon of reform. You calculate it by conjuring the concept of academic peers–students who score the same (plus or minus a few points) on a standardized test in one year and are tested again in the next year.
“If some members of these academic peer groups score higher than others from the baseline year to the next year, they have ‘an accelerated growth trajectory.’ If the scores of academic peers stay in about the same location from the baseline year to the next (think bell curve) then are making ‘expected progress.’
“If some students fall behind their academic peers, then they are not meeting expectations. They are falling behind, have negative growth. They and their teachers are in need of a ‘rigorous’ intervention.
“These creative formulations of the meaning of ‘growth’ are extended to produce judgments of teachers. In some districts, a teacher is judged highly effective if and only if they produce ‘more than a year’s worth of growth’ and so on. ‘A year’s worth of growth’ is a totally fictional concept propagated as is if every school is in session 365 days.
“The accountability year for teachers of ‘non-tested’ subjects, (about 70% or all teachers) is from the end of November to the middle of April–pretest to post-test–with a bunch of paperwork to prove they have hit their ‘growth targets.’
“Myths, misrepresentations, falsehoods, lies, fraud [are] all marketed as ‘objective’ measures. The reasoning is a combination of No Child Left Behind’s ‘adequate yearly progress’ and Race to the Top rhetoric with targets and trajectories, plus some high jumps produced by raising the bar, and a deep well of other very mixed and very dangerous metaphors.”
From one of many comments on Diane Ravitch’s Blog Post: “Laura Chapman: "Student Growth Is Lipstick on a Pig"
http://dianeravitch.net/2014/05/14/laura-chapman-student-growth-is-lipstick-on-a-pig/