imited The teacher seeks out opportunities for The teacher seeks out opportunities for
s when professional development to enhance professional development and makes a
her content knowledge and pedagogical skill. systematic effort to conduct action
colleagues The teacher actively engages with research. The teacher solicits feedback
al colleagues and supervisors in on practice from both supervisors and
ncluding professional conversation about practice, colleagues. The teacher initiates
including feedback about practice. The important activities to contribute to the
ds limited teacher participates actively in assisting profession.
and other educators and looks for ways to
contribute to the profession. The teacher seeks regular
they are opportunities for continued
district. The teacher seeks regular professional development, including
epts opportunities for continued initiating action research.
and professional development.
The teacher actively seeks feedback
a limited The teacher welcomes colleagues and from supervisors and colleagues.
anizations. supervisors into the classroom for the
purposes of gaining insight from their The teacher takes an active leadership
district feedback. role in professional organizations in
l order to contribute to the profession.
n’t make The teacher actively participates in
eceived. organizations designed to contribute to The teacher’s principal rarely spends
incipal’s the profession. time observing in her classroom.
isn’t sure Therefore, she has initiated an action
eally apply The teacher eagerly attends the research project in order to improve
district’s optional summer workshops, her own instruction.
chapter of knowing they provide a wealth of
iation instructional strategies he’ll be able to The teacher is working on a particular
rom the use during the school year. instructional strategy and asks his
doesn’t feel colleagues to observe in his classroom
The teacher enjoys her principal’s in order to provide objective feedback
weekly walk-through visits because on his progress.
they always lead to a valuable informal
discussion during lunch the next day. The teacher has founded a local
organization devoted to literacy
The teacher joins a science education education; her leadership has inspired
partnership and finds that it provides teachers in the community to work on
him access to resources for his several curriculum and instruction
classroom that truly benefit his projects.
students.
And others…
And others…
Page 77
4f The teacher displays dishonesty in interactions The teacher is honest in interaction
Showing with colleagues, students, and the public. The
Professionalism teacher is not alert to students’ needs and colleagues, students, and the publi
contributes to school practices that result in teacher’s attempts to serve studen
some students being ill served by the school.
The teacher makes decisions and inconsistent, and unknowingly cont
recommendations that are based on self-
serving interests. The teacher does not comply some students being ill served by t
with school and district regulations. The teacher’s decisions and recom
are based on limited though genuin
professional considerations. The te
be reminded by supervisors about
with school and district regulations.
Critical Attributes The teacher is dishonest. The teacher is honest.
Possible Examples The teacher does not notice the needs of The teacher notices the needs o
students. but is inconsistent in addressing
The teacher engages in practices that are The teacher does not notice tha
self-serving. school practices result in poor co
The teacher willfully rejects district students.
The teacher makes decisions pr
regulations. but on a limited basis.
The teacher complies with distric
regulations.
The teacher makes some errors when The teacher says, “I have alway
marking the most recent common grade partner to be truthful. If sh
assessment but doesn’t tell his colleagues. sick today, then I believe her.”
The teacher does not realize that three of The teacher considers staying la
her neediest students arrive at school an some of her students in after-sch
hour early every morning because their
mothers can’t afford daycare. but then realizes it would conflic
The teacher fails to notice that one of his health club class and so decides
kindergartners is often ill, looks
The teacher notices a student st
malnourished, and frequently has bruises on his class and sends a quick ema
her arms and legs. counselor. When he doesn’t get
When one of her colleagues goes home he assumes the problem has be
suddenly because of illness, the teacher
pretends to have a meeting so that she care of.
won’t have to share in the coverage When the teacher’s grade partne
responsibilities.
on maternity leave, the teacher s
The teacher does not file his students’ and “Welcome” to the substitute
writing samples in their district cumulative
folders; it is time-consuming, and he wants not offer any further assistance.
to leave early for summer break.
The teacher keeps his district-re
And others… gradebook up to date but enters
minimum number of assignment
by his department chair.
And others…
ns with The teacher displays high standards of The teacher can be counted on to hold the
ic. The honesty, integrity, and confidentiality in highest standards of honesty, integrity, and
nts are interactions with colleagues, students, and the confidentiality and takes a leadership role with
tribute to public. The teacher is active in serving colleagues. The teacher is highly proactive in
the school. students, working to ensure that all students serving students, seeking out resources when
mmendations receive a fair opportunity to succeed. The needed. The teacher makes a concerted effort
nely teacher maintains an open mind in team or to challenge negative attitudes or practices to
eacher must departmental decision making. The teacher ensure that all students, particularly those
complying complies fully with school and district traditionally underserved, are honored in the
. regulations. school. The teacher takes a leadership role in
team or departmental decision making and
of students The teacher is honest and known for having helps ensure that such decisions are based on
g them. high standards of integrity. the highest professional standards. The
at some teacher complies fully with school and district
onditions for The teacher actively addresses student regulations, taking a leadership role with
needs. colleagues.
rofessionally
The teacher actively works to provide The teacher is considered a leader in terms
ct opportunities for student success. of honesty, integrity, and confidentiality.
ys known my The teacher willingly participates in team The teacher is highly proactive in serving
he called in and departmental decision making. students.
ate to help The teacher complies completely with The teacher makes a concerted effort to
hool daycare district regulations. ensure opportunities are available for all
ct with her students to be successful.
s against it. The teacher is trusted by his grade partners;
truggling in they share information with him, confident it The teacher takes a leadership role in team
ail to the will not be repeated inappropriately. and departmental decision making.
a response,
een taken Despite her lack of knowledge about dance, The teacher takes a leadership role
the teacher forms a dance club at her high regarding district regulations.
er goes out school to meet the high interest level of her
says “Hello” students who cannot afford lessons. When a young teacher has trouble
e but does understanding directions from the principal,
The teacher notices some speech delays in she immediately goes to a more seasoned
equired a few of her young students; she calls in the teacher—who, she knows, can be relied on
s exactly the speech therapist to do a few sessions in her for expert advice and complete discretion.
ts specified classroom and provide feedback on further
steps. After the school’s intramural basketball
program is discontinued, the teacher finds
The English department chair says, “I some former student athletes to come in and
appreciate when _______ attends our after- work with his students, who have come to
school meetings; he always contributes love the after-school sessions.
something meaningful to the discussion.”
The teacher enlists the help of her principal
The teacher learns the district’s new online when she realizes that a colleague has been
curriculum mapping system and writes in all making disparaging comments about some
of her courses. disadvantaged students.
And others… The math department looks forward to their
weekly meetings; their leader, the teacher, is
always seeking new instructional strategies
and resources for them to discuss.
When the district adopts a new Web-based
grading program, the teacher learns it inside
and out so that she will be able to assist her
colleagues with its implementation.
And others…
Page 78
Domain 4 Professional Responsibilities Documentation:
Domain 3 What’s Working:
Domain 3 Areas for Growth/Reflection Opportunities:
Page 79
Final Summative Conference Evaluation Form
Educator: ________________________________ Position: ___________________ School Year: _______
Evaluator: _______________________________________ Mid-Plan
Years of Service: _________________________________ (Check if used with
educators on a PDP)
Professional Practice
Observation dates included in this summative evaluation:
Formal Observation Dates:
Informal Observation Dates:
Domain 1 – Planning and Preparation Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Proficient Excellent
Domain 2 – Environment Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Proficient Excellent
Domain 3 – Instruction/Delivery of Service Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Proficient Excellent
Domain 4 – Professional Responsibilities Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Proficient Excellent
Summative Professional Practice Overall Rating Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Proficient Excellent
**Form Continues with the Summative Student Growth & Overall Summative Rating
Page 80
The following categories of certified staff can find specific forms on RIM Net:
Behaviorist (use Instructional Specialist Framework)
Instructional Coaches (use Instructional Coach Framework)
Library/Media Center Specialist (use Library/Media Center Specialist)
PPS Coordinator/Liaison (use Instructional Specialist Framework)
School Counselor (use School Counselor Framework)
School Psychologist (use School Psychologist Framework)
Social Worker (use Therapeutic Specialist Framework)
Speech/Language Pathologist (use Therapeutic Specialist Framework)
T&L Specialist (use Instructional Specialist Framework)
Page 81
Tenured Educator Professional Development Plan (PDP) Form
Educator: _____________________________________________________________________________
Evaluator(s): ___________________________________________________________________________
District/Building Resource Person(s): ________________________________________________________
Date of PDP: ____________________________ (to be completed within 30 days of Summative Evaluation)
Domain: ________________ (Use a separate sheet for each domain identified as an area of improvement)
Component Name and Letter: _____________________________________________________________
Rationale for Area of Improvement: _________________________________________________________
Improvement Strategies
Tasks to Complete
Supports and Resources
Indicators of Progress
Target Completion Date
Component Name and Letter: _____________________________________________________________
Rationale for Area of Improvement: _________________________________________________________
Improvement Strategies
Tasks to Complete
Supports and Resources
Indicators of Progress
Target Completion Date
Page 82
Component Name and Letter: _____________________________________________________________
Rationale for Area of Improvement: _________________________________________________________
Improvement Strategies
Tasks to Complete
Supports and Resources
Indicators of Progress
Target Completion Date
Component Name and Letter: _____________________________________________________________
Rationale for Area of Improvement: _________________________________________________________
Improvement Strategies
Tasks to Complete
Supports and Resources
Indicators of Progress
Target Completion Date
Educator’s Signature: ______________________________ Date: ____________________________
Evaluator’s Signature: ______________________________ Date: ____________________________
Signatures above indicated the plan was mutually developed by the evaluator and the educator.
Evaluator Comments
Page 83
Tenured Educator Professional Development Plan (PDP) Guide Sheet
Creating a Professional Development Plan for a Tenured Educator Rated “Needs Improvement”
The Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010 includes the language regarding the creation of a
Professional Development Plan for an Educator in contractual continued service (tenured) who is rated
“Needs Improvement”.
This Professional Development Plan (PDP)
is to be created within 30 days after the completion of an evaluation resulting in the “Needs
Improvement” rating
will be developed by the evaluator(s) in consultation with the educator and will take into account the
tenured educator’s ongoing professional responsibilities including his/her regular teaching assignments
is to be directed to the areas that need improvement and include supports that the district will provide to
address the performance areas identified as needing improvement
After development of the PDP, the educator and evaluator(s) will collaborate to determine the target
completion date.
Tenured educator must be evaluated at least once in the school year resulting in a Summative rating following
the Professional Development Plan. Staff members who are rated “Proficient” or “Excellent” at that time will be
reinstated to the Tenured Educator Evaluation Plan Process for Proficient and Excellent Education Growth
Plan.
For tenured educators who are evaluated and receive a summative rating of “Needs Improvement” or
“Unsatisfactory” at the completion of the PDP, the school district will start a remediation plan under the
provisions of Illinois School Code 105 ILCS 5/24A-5—ALL LAW and not negotiable.
Professional Development Plan Components
District/Building Resource Person: Tenured educator of the district/building that is mutually
designated through the PDP. The district/building resource person(s) will be identified and chosen
based on the areas needing improvement identified in the summative evaluation.
Domain/ Component: Domain and component rated needs improvement
Rationale for Area of Improvement: Evidence from observations that show an area needing
improvement
Improvement Strategies: Strategies the educator can use to show improvement in needed
domain/component
Tasks to Complete: Specific tasks the educator will complete to improve the domain/component
Support and Resources: List of supports and resources the educator can use to improve,
e.g., workshops, observe colleagues, ask a specialist, books/journals
Indicators of Progress: How the educator will show progress towards proficient/excellent in
domain/component through mandatory formal observation(s), and may also include informal
observation, data, evidence, etc.
Page 84
Tenured Educator Professional Development Plan (PDP) Activity Log
Educator: _____________________________________________________________________________
Evaluator(s): ___________________________________________________________________________
Date of PDP: ___________________________________________________________________________
Date Component Activity Evidence
Page 85
Tenured Educator Professional Development Plan (PDP) Summary
Form—HR FORM and Must Go To the Administration Center
Educator: _____________________________________________________________________________
Evaluator(s): ___________________________________ Date of PDP: ______________________
Area(s) to Improve Date:
Domain __________ Component __________ Date:
Successfully Completed? Yes No Date:
Domain __________ Component __________ Date:
Successfully Completed? Yes No
Domain __________ Component __________
Successfully Completed? Yes No
Domain __________ Component __________
Successfully Completed? Yes No
NEXT STEPS:
Success means the final results in an overall rating of Proficient or Excellent—cycle would be
approximately 1 school year or 6 months. YOU DO NOT get another year to reach proficient or
excellent. If this is not met, you move to Unsatisfactory and you move to a remediation plan.
Educator completion of Professional Development Plan: Yes No
Educator’s Signature: ______________________________
Evaluator’s Signature: ______________________________ Date: ____________________________
Date: ____________________________
The educator’s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the contents, but does acknowledge
that the evaluation meeting occurred and that the educator received a copy of this Professional Development
Plan Summary.
Page 86
Tenured Educator Professional Development Plan (PDP)
Mid-Plan Meeting
Conversation Form
Educator: _____________________________________________________________________________
Evaluator(s): ___________________________________ Date: ____________________________
Topics from Educator:
Topics from Evaluator(s):
Notes from Meeting
What is working:
Areas to modify:
Challenges/Concerns (if any):
Educator’s Signature: ______________________________ Date: ____________________________
Evaluator’s Signature: ______________________________ Date: ____________________________
To be completed by the end of January—but is adjustable based on when you begin the plan
(give approximately 6-10 months).
Page 87
Student Growth Process Summary
Student Growth EGP Approval: Student Learning Objective(s) section
Educators will meet with their evaluators and collaboratively develop their Student Learning Objective(s) within
the Educator Growth Plan (EGP) for approval. The evaluator and educator will work collaboratively to ensure
that the growth targets are feasible and attainable. See table below outlining the timeline of the approval
process:
Key Points for Approval of the Educator Growth Plan (EGP):
The EGP includes both student growth (Student Learning Objective) and professional practice (Individual
Growth Goal and Building/Program Goal).
The educator and evaluator jointly convene a meeting to review and finalize each section of the EGP.
The agreed upon EGP must include all three areas: Individual Growth Goal, Building/Program Growth
Goal, and Student Learning Objective.
If the educator and evaluator cannot agree, the educator must revise the EGP and resubmit. A
conference is optional and can be requested by either party.
If the educator and evaluator cannot agree even after the resubmission, the evaluator makes a final
growth target determination.
EGP: Student Learning Objective (SLO) Revisions
Revising student growth targets is an important step, especially during the first few years of implementation,
when limited data is available by which to set feasible growth targets. The educator should regularly monitor
student progress after the SLO is approved. After the first few weeks of the evaluation cycle, once more data is
available, the educator is allowed the opportunity to revise student growth targets in the SLO section of the
EGP, based upon the progress monitoring data or changes in the classroom. SLO revisions follow a given
timeline, as shown below:
SLO revisions are optional, and ONLY the student growth targets can be revised. The evaluator must
approve any SLO revisions, and the educator needs to provide sufficient evidence that revisions are needed.
The educator needs to provide the original SLO, the revised SLO, and data sources to support any student
growth targets revisions.
Key Points on SLO Revisions:
The educator and evaluator jointly convene a meeting to review and revise the SLO.
The agreed upon SLO revision(s) must be approved against the criteria. (Pages 43 and 44)
If the educator and evaluator cannot agree, the educator can resubmit revisions. A conference is
optional and can be requested by either party.
If the educator and evaluator cannot agree even after the resubmission, the evaluator makes a final
SLO determination.
The evaluator will need to ensure that any needed revisions are due to an incomplete understanding of
students’ starting points, significant changes to the classroom beyond the educator’s control, or the
assessment, rather than revising the growth targets based upon the quality of instruction taking place inside
the classroom. Educators can revise their growth targets to increase the rigor, as well.
Student Learning Objectives (SLO) can be revised if one of the following conditions is met:
Growth targets have already been met and/or are not sufficiently ambitious
Growth targets are too ambitious
Based on new data collected since they were set, objectives fail to address the most important learning
challenges in the classroom/school
New, more reliable data sources are available
Class compositions or teaching schedule have changed significantly
Page 88
The SLO must meet same criteria as before.
Student Learning Objectives (SLO) Scoring
***For all educators, the Data Tool is required and, as pre- and post assessment data are
entered, will assist educators in knowing what his/her student growth score on the summative
rating will be.
This is the final step in SLO process. The educator will receive one score that combines all building/program-
wide measures and all individual measures. Individual classroom SLOs will be worth 20% of the summative
performance evaluation rating, while building/program-wide measures will be worth 10% of the summative
performance evaluation rating.
The Student Growth portion of the evaluation (individual classroom and building/program-wide measures) will
receive a score in one of four categories, “Unsatisfactory”, “Needs Improvement”, “Proficient”, or “Excellent,”
based upon the following thresholds:
Rating* Threshold
Excellent 80% or more of students met their growth targets (4)
Proficient 65%-79% of students met their growth targets (3)
Needs Improvement 50%-64% of students met their growth targets (2)
Unsatisfactory Less than 50% of students met their growth targets (1)
*Assumes all guidelines and protocols are followed.
If an individual or building/program goals are using MAP as the assessment, the following will be used:
Rating* Threshold
Excellent >65% of students met their growth targets (4)
Proficient 45%-65% of students met their growth targets (3)
Needs Improvement 25%-44% of students met their growth targets (2)
Unsatisfactory Less than 25% of students met their growth targets (1)
**If both MAP and non-MAP assessments are used, the summative score will average all ratings. For example:
Type III assessment results show an Excellent rating = 4
Type I assessment results (MAP) show an Needs Improvement rating = 2
Summative score = Proficient (4+2 divided by 2 = 3)
At the end of the evaluation cycle, educators are allowed to request exceptions to the student population, if
students did not meet attendance or enrollment guidelines. Students must be present during the pre-test
window to appear on the initial SLO, and any student with less than 85% attendance must be removed from
the final SLO roster on the data tool. Students may also be removed from the SLO roster under “exceptional
circumstances,” but only with evaluator approval. Educators must provide evidence for any exceptions.
Key Points of Student Growth Scoring:
The educator scores the SLO results using approved data and performance levels. The educator then
submits the final SLO for evaluator review and approval.
The evaluator reviews the final SLO.
The evaluator accepts or rejects final SLO.
If the evaluator rejects the final SLO, the teacher must re-score and resubmit the final SLO; if the
evaluator again rejects proposed score then the evaluator submits a final score.
Page 89
Summative Student Growth Rating
The summative student growth rating will be determined by multiple Student Growth scores: individual and
building/program-wide measures. **NOTE – Building/Program and School-wide are the same thing. The
phrases may be used interchangeably.
There are two separate scores that determine the student growth rating: 1) the individual SLO ratings and 2)
the building/program-wide measures rating. All Student Growth ratings (together) will be worth 2/3 (or 83.3%)
of the summative student growth rating, while building/program-wide measures (together) are worth 1/3 of the
summative student growth rating. The formula to determine the summative student growth rating is as follows:
2/3 x (Summative Student Growth Rating) + 1/3 (Summative School-Wide Measures Rating) =
Summative Student Growth Rating
Each of the Summative Student Growth Rating, Summative School-Wide Measures Rating, and the
Summative Student Growth Rating is a number between 1 and 4, 1 for “Unsatisfactory” and 4 for “Excellent”.
See information below to determine the Summative Student Growth rating, which includes the Summative
Building/Program-Wide Measures Rating, and the Summative Student Growth Rating. A Data Tool will
provide educators each of the Student Growth EGP rating and the Summative Student Growth ratings.
Training will be provided on the use of this tool.
**NOTE – Building/Program and School-wide are the same thing. The phrases may be used
interchangeably.
Summative Student Growth Rating
The educator determines the Student Growth EGP rating by scoring all Student Growth measures together.
This means that the educator will determine the total number of students who met their growth targets, across
all Student Growth goals/measures and divide this by the total number of students who meet the attendance
and enrollment requirements.
See the formula below:
Total # Students Meeting Growth Targets Across All Student Growth Goals/Measures
Total # Students Without Exceptions Across All Student Growth Goals/Measures
Then, the educator applies the percentage to the performance thresholds:
Rating* Threshold
Excellent 80% or more of students met their growth targets (4)
Proficient 65%-79% of students met their growth targets (3)
Needs Improvement 50%-64% of students met their growth targets (2)
Unsatisfactory Less than 50% of students met their growth targets (1)
*Assumes all guidelines and protocols are followed.
If an individual or building/program goals are using MAP as the assessment, the following will be used:
Rating* Threshold
Excellent >65% of students met their growth targets (4)
Proficient 45%-65% of students met their growth targets (3)
Needs Improvement 25%-44% of students met their growth targets (2)
Unsatisfactory Less than 25% of students met their growth targets (1)
Page 90
**If both MAP and non-MAP assessments are used, the summative score will average all ratings. For example:
Type III assessment results show an Excellent rating = 4
Type I assessment results (MAP) show an Needs Improvement rating = 2
Summative score = Proficient (4+2 divided by 2 = 3)
**If both MAP and non-MAP assessments are used, the summative score will average all ratings. For example:
Type III assessment results show an Excellent rating = 4
Type I assessment results (MAP) show an Needs Improvement rating = 2
Summative score = Proficient (4+2 divided by 2 = 3)
The educator submits the Student Growth Rating to the evaluator, along with all student growth data, to
the evaluator either by or before February 1 (for any Fall Semester data; and non-tenured educators) or by the
final contractual day of school (for any Spring Semester or Year-long data for tenured educators).
***Note: See the Student Population criteria on the Student Growth Form of the EGP descriptions for
clarification of the attendance and enrollment requirements. Students must be present during the pre-test and
post-test window and have 85% attendance to appear on the final student population roster. Any students with
less than 85% attendance, who enroll after the pre-test window, or who are no longer enrolled by the post-test
window are NOT included in the final student population roster and are not included in any rating.
Example:
A tenured Proficient/Excellent educator with yearlong classes has 4 individual Student Growth measures/goals
across the evaluation cycle. Say there are 25 students who meet the attendance and enrollment requirements
in each Student Growth measure/goal.
Student Growth Goal/Measure # # Students Meeting Targets Total # Students
(without exceptions)
1 15
2 20 25
3 22 25
4 15 25
TOTAL 75 25
100
The educator adds up the total number of students who met their growth targets across all Student Growth
goals/measures: (15+20+22+18)=75
Then, the educator adds up the total number of students across Student Growth goals/measures who meet the
attendance and enrollment requirements: (25+25+25+25)=100
Finally, the educator divides the total number of students meeting targets by the total number of students:
75/100=75%
Using the performance thresholds above, the educator receives a “Proficient” Summative Student Growth
Rating.
Summative School-Wide Measures Rating
**NOTE – Building/Program and School-wide are the same thing. The phrases may be used interchangeably.
After each semester or year, the building leadership team will provide educators data to determine the School-
Wide (Building/Program) Measures Rating. Each educator must then use this data to determine her own
summative School-Wide (Building/Program) Measures Rating; educators may have different School-Wide
Measures (Building/Program) Ratings if they are on different evaluation cycles, even if they are located
in the same school.
Page 91
All School-Wide (Building/Program) Measures will be scored together, in a similar process as determining the
Student Growth rating. This means that the educator will determine the total number of students who met their
growth targets, across all School-wide (Building/Program) Measures, and divide this by the total number of
students who meet the attendance and enrollment requirements. See the formula below:
Total # Students Meeting Growth Targets Across All School-Wide Measures/Goals
Total # Students Without Exceptions Across All School-Wide Measures/Goals
Then, the educator applies the percentage to the performance thresholds:
Rating* Threshold
Excellent 80% or more of students met their growth targets (4)
Proficient 65%-79% of students met their growth targets (3)
Needs Improvement 50%-64% of students met their growth targets (2)
Unsatisfactory Less than 50% of students met their growth targets (1)
*Assumes all guidelines and protocols are followed.
If an individual or building/program goals are using MAP as the assessment, the following will be used:
Rating* Threshold
Excellent >65% of students met their growth targets (4)
Proficient 45%-65% of students met their growth targets (3)
Needs Improvement 25%-44% of students met their growth targets (2)
Unsatisfactory Less than 25% of students met their growth targets (1)
The building leadership team will provide the educator the following information for each School-Wide
(Building/Program) Measure:
The total number of students meeting growth targets on that measure/goal
The total number of students who met the attendance and enrollment requirements
The educator would then need to enter this data into the Data Tool to determine the Summative School-wide
(Building/Program) Measures Rating. The educator then submits the Summative School-wide
(Building/Program) Measures Rating to the evaluator, along with all student growth data, to the evaluator
by or before February 1.
***Note: See the Student Population criteria on the Student Growth Form of the EGP for clarification of the
attendance and enrollment requirements. Students must be present during the pre-test and post-test window
and have 85% attendance to appear on the final student population roster. Any students with less than 85%
attendance, who enroll after the pre-test window, or who are no longer enrolled by the post-test window are
NOT included in the final student population roster and are not included in any rating.
Example:
An elementary tenured Proficient/Excellent educator with yearlong classes has 4 School-wide
(Building/Program) Measures across the evaluation cycle. Say there are 100 students who meet the
attendance and enrollment requirements in each School-wide (Building/Program) Measure.
Page 92
School-Wide Measures # # Students Meeting Targets Total # Students
(without exceptions)
1 62
2 48 100
3 76 100
4 90 100
TOTAL 276 100
400
The educator adds up the total number of students who met their growth targets across all Student Growth
measures/goals: (62+48+76+90) = 276
Then, the educator adds up the total number of students across Student Growth measures/goals who meet the
attendance and enrollment requirements: (100+100+100+100) = 400
Finally, the educator divides the total number of students meeting targets by the total number of students:
276/600=69%
Using the performance thresholds above, the educator receives a “Proficient” Summative School-wide
(Building/Program) Measures Rating, which will account for 5% of the educator’s overall summative rating.
Summative Student Growth Rating
The Summative Student Growth Rating is determined at the end of the evaluation cycle, after data from all
Student Growth measures/goals and all School-wide (Building/Program) Measures are available. The educator
must submit the summative Student Growth Rating to the evaluator by the timelines established in your
identified evaluation cycle. (Refer to charts beginning on page 21.)
The steps for determining the summative student growth rating is as follows:
1. The educator determines the Summative Student Growth Rating (see section “Summative Student
Growth Rating” above)
2. The educator assigns a numerical score to the Summative Student Growth Rating, according the
rating and performance thresholds (see section “Summative Student Growth Rating” above). A
rating of 1 is for “Unsatisfactory,” 2 for “Needs Improvement,” 3 for “Proficient,” and 4 for “Excellent.”
3. The educator determines the Summative School-wide (Building/Program) Measures Rating (see
section “Summative School-wide Measures Rating” above)
4. The educator assigns a numerical score to the Summative School-wide Measures Rating,
according the rating and performance thresholds (see section “Summative School-wide
(Building/Program) Measures Rating” above). A rating of 1 is for “Unsatisfactory,” 2 for “Needs
Improvement,” 3 for “Proficient,” and 4 for “Excellent.”
5. The educator applies the following formula:
o 2/3 x (Summative Student Growth Rating) + 1/3 x (Summative School-wide (Building/Program)
Measures Rating) = Summative Student Growth Rating
o When multiple scores are obtained, the final score is an average of all scores.
o The educator then applies the number to the following thresholds:
Thresholds Summative Student Growth Rating
3.5 or higher Excellent
2.5 to (but not including) 3.5 Proficient
1.5 to (but not including) 2.5 Needs Improvement
Less than 1.5 Unsatisfactory
Note: A Data Tool provided by the district can automatically calculate the summative student growth
rating. Educators will receive training on the use of this tool.
Page 93
Example Summative Student Growth Rating:
A high school, tenured educator with semester-long courses has the following Student Growth (individual):
Student Growth IGP # # Students Meeting Targets Total # Students
(without exceptions)
1 78 100
2 90 100
3 55 100
4 62 100
5 48 100
6 75 100
TOTAL 408 600
This same educator has the following Building/Program-wide data:
School-Wide Measures # # Students Meeting Targets Total # Students
(without exceptions)
1 1300
2 1100 1500
TOTAL 2400 1500
3000
Step 1: Determine the Summative Student Growth Rating, using the formula:
Total # Students Meeting Growth Targets Across All Student Growth Goals (individual and building/program)
Total # Students Without Exceptions Across All Student Growth (individual and building/program)
Summative Student Growth Rating = (408)/(600) = 68%
Step 2: Apply the performance thresholds and assign the Summative Student Growth score a numerical score
Rating Threshold
Excellent
Proficient • 80% or more of students met their growth targets
Needs Improvement • MAP: >65% met their growth target
Unsatisfactory
• 65%-79% students met their growth targets
• MAP: 45-65% met their growth target
• 50-64% students met their growth targets
• MAP: 25-44% met their growth target
• Less than 50% students met their growth targets
• MAP: <25% met their growth target
68%=Proficient; “Proficient” rating receives a score of 3.
Page 94
Step 3: Determine the Summative Building/Program-wide Measures Rating, using the formula:
Total # Students Meeting Growth Targets Across All Building/Program-wide Measures
Total # Students Without Exceptions Across All Building/Program-wide Measures
Summative Building/Program -wide Measures Rating = (2400)/(3000) = 80%
Step 4: Apply the performance thresholds and assign the Summative Building/Program -wide Measures Rating
a numerical score
Rating Threshold
Excellent
Proficient • 80% or more of students met their growth targets
Needs Improvement • MAP: >65% met their growth target
Unsatisfactory
• 65%-79% students met their growth targets
• MAP: 45-65% met their growth target
• 50-64% students met their growth targets
• MAP: 25-44% met their growth target
• Less than 50% students met their growth targets
• MAP: <25% met their growth target
80%=Excellent; “Excellent” rating receives a score of 4.
Step 5: Apply the following formula using the two scores:
2/3 x (Summative Student Growth Rating) + 1/3 x (Summative Building/Program-wide Measures Rating) =
2/3 x (3) + 1/3 x (4) = 3.33
3.33 receives a summative student growth rating of “Proficient” using the table below:
Thresholds Summative Student Growth Rating
3.5 or higher Excellent
2.5 to (but not including) 3.5 Proficient
1.5 to (but not including) 2.5 Needs Improvement
Less than 1.5 Unsatisfactory
Summative Student Growth Rating Process
The educator is responsible for determining the summative student growth rating and providing this data to the
evaluator, either by the final contractual school data for any yearlong data or Spring semester data or by
February 1st for any Fall semester data. The roles of the educator and evaluator are outlined below:
1. The teacher scores the Student Growth section using approved data and performance levels.
The teacher then submits the final Student Growth ratings for evaluator review and approval.
2. The evaluator reviews the final Student Growth ratings.
3. The evaluator accepts or rejects final Student Growth ratings.
4. If the evaluator rejects the final Student Growth ratings, the teacher must rescore and resubmit
the final Student Growth ratings; if the evaluator again rejects proposed score then the evaluator
submits a final score.
Page 95
Summative Performance Evaluation Rating
At the end of the evaluation cycle, the summative student growth rating will be combined with the professional
practice rating for each educator to determine the summative performance evaluation rating, in accordance
with Illinois PERA guidelines.
The following matrix will be used to determine the summative performance evaluation rating:
Professional Practice
Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Proficient Excellent
Student Growth Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Needs Improvement ****
Needs Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Proficient Proficient
Improvement
Proficient Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Proficient Excellent
Excellent **** Proficient but must Proficient Excellent
establish a PDP
****Must collect more evidence of professional practice and student growth
Example 1:
If an educator received a summative Professional Practice rating of “Needs Improvement” and a summative
Student Growth Rating of “Excellent,” that educator would receive a summative Performance Evaluation Rating
of “Proficient,” but that educator would also need to establish a Professional Development Plan for the next
evaluation cycle.
Example 2:
If an educator received a summative Professional Practice Rating of “Proficient” and a summative Student
Growth Rating of “Excellent,” that educator would receive a summative Performance Evaluation Rating of
“Proficient.”
Summative Performance Evaluation Rating Processes
Educators must submit the score for each Student Growth at the end of the Student Growth cycle and provide
this data, using the Data Tool, to the evaluator by either the end of the 2nd week in January or final contractual
school day, based upon the instructional period and the Student Growth cycle. This data will then be discussed
at either the next Approval Meeting or the summative conference. Either the educator or evaluator can request
a conference or meeting to discuss these scores. These scores can be used to monitor progress, before
determining the Summative Student Growth Rating or the Summative Student Growth Rating.
There will be no summative rating assigned until all evidence is collected and analyzed at the end of the
evaluation cycle. However, evaluators are expected to provide written feedback on performance, regarding the
student growth rating during the evaluation cycle.
Page 96