Presentation made by Niles Township HS administrators at the IASA workshop on November 18, 2011 on the subject of using student performance for teacher and principal evaluation purposes.

1. Ensuring Success for Every Student
Facilitating academic success for all
through rigorous, individual achievement growth targeting

2. District 219 Mission 1
To ensure a student-focused learning environment
where every student succeeds.
DISTRICT 219
ALIGNED
PHILOSOPHY
D219 GROWTH MODEL
Facilitating academic success for all through rigorous, individual
achievement growth targeting

3. LOCAL growth model 1
Uses Local Norming – not State, Regional or Federal
Same testing windows
Same Assessments or combination of assessments – District chooses
Accounts for confounding variables, i.e. SES, Sp. Ed., Race
Growth is determined under local programs, courses and teachers
Propensity scores can capture achievement potential from multiple
past achievement records with different growth projections/scales

4. D219’S LGM 1
In addition benchmarking growth against state, national and
college readiness benchmarks, the growth model benchmarks
individual and aggregate growth against local norms.
Local norms provide the following benefits:
Eliminate known limitations of the EPAS system for measuring
growth
Reliably identify students at risk for not being on track to
meet or exceed state standards
Capture individual and aggregate value-added growth
Provide more meaningful growth benchmarks;
benchmarks individual student growth against typical
growth of similar D219 students
Facilitating academic success for all through rigorous, individual
achievement growth targeting

5. Application 1
PLACING STUDENTS into the most rigorous courses; ensuring all
students have equitable access to instruction within the curriculum;
academic intervention placement
MONITORING THE ACHIEVMENT GROWTH of every individual
student; setting realistic but rigorous individual targets
Program and course evaluation – RETURN ON INVESTMENT
TEACHER AND ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION

6. Current D219 EPAS Program 2
EXPLORE PLAN Practice ACT/PSAE
ACT
(for course
placement)
GRADE 8 SPRING GRADE 9 SPRING GRADE 10 SPRING GRADE 11
Facilitating academic success for all through rigorous, individual
achievement growth targeting

7. Local Norms 2
Example: Mathematics
35.0
C RL 1: 1-12 C RL 2: 13-15 C RL 3: 16-19
C RL 4: 20-25 DISTRIC T
30.0
25.0
MEAN SCORE
20.0
15.0
CRL = College
Readiness Level
10.0
GR 8 EXPLORE GR 9 PLAN MATH GR 10 IAC T MATH GR 11 AC T MATH
MATH
Facilitating academic success for all through rigorous, individual
achievement growth targeting

8. Setting Individual Targets 2
YOUR EPAS PERFORMANCE
Individual Student Targets: Mathematics
SCORE PLAN IACT ACT SCORE
35
25 27 29 34 25
24 26 28 33 24 YOUR SCORES
23 25 27 32 23 30 TARGETS
22 24 26 31 22 CRL LEVEL
21 23 25 30 21
20 22 24 29 20 25
19 22 23 28 19
18 21 22 27 18
17 20 21 26 17 20
16 19 20 25 16
15 18 19 23 15
15
14 17 18 22 14
13 16 17 21 13
12 17 18 21 12 10
11 16 17 20 11
10 15 16 19 10
9 14 15 18 9 5
8 13 14 17 8 GR 8 EXPLORE MATH GR 9 PLAN MATH GR 10 IACT MATH GR 11 ACT MATH
7 12 13 16 7
6 11 12 15 6 *Note: Student has not yet taken ACT
5 10 11 14 5
4 9 10 13 4 Every student will grow one point greater
3 8 9 12 3
2 7 8 11 2 each year than comparable students in
1 6 7 10 1 the norm group.
SCORE PLAN IACT ACT SCORE CRL = College
Readiness Level
Facilitating academic success for all through rigorous, individual
achievement growth targeting

9. 2

10. 2

11. 2

12. 2

13. Value-Added Education 1
If the District 219 Instructional Program is
improving, students should outperform the projections.
How are we going to do that?
One student at a time by:
Setting realistic, but rigorous individual student targets for
every single student.
Ensuring students have access to the most important
components of the curriculum through appropriate course
placement and access to interventions.
Improving the effectiveness of all programs.
Adds to the conversation – HIGH SCHOOL
READINESS
Facilitating academic success for all through rigorous, individual
achievement growth targeting

14. 1

15. Course Placement 2
District 219 will also be using the models to
reliably and analytically recommend eighth-grade
students into freshman-year courses.
Rigor will be stressed when considering
placement. Students will be placed in the
highest-level course that is supported by the
data.
Facilitating academic success for all through rigorous, individual
achievement growth targeting

16. Course Placement: Rules of Thumb 2
Placement decision rules are based on
sophisticated analytical procedures. The following
table shows a simple rule of thumb that works for
most cases.
Rules of Thumb: Math
EXPLORE Math EXPLORE Math, Science Recommendation
17-25 Math + Science > 38 A05/07
Math + Science < 38 A03
14-16 2*Math + Science > 43 A03
2*Math + Science < 43 A01
12-13 Science > 12 A01
Science < 12 B01
1-11 B01
Facilitating academic success for all through rigorous, individual
achievement growth targeting

17. 2

18. 2
Freshman Math Course Enrollment
By Graduating Class & Grade Weight
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2012 2013 2014 2015
2 31% 30% 19% 8%
3 42% 43% 54% 68%
4 27% 27% 27% 24%

19. Summer 2010
2

20. Summer 2011 Algebra Readiness Results 2
• 131 students enrolled in Algebra Readiness to improve
mathematics deficiencies
• 33% of these students tested out of the extension course
• Average proficiency went from 20% to 52% mastery of
learning targets for Algebra
• Algebra Readiness students increased their EXPLORE math
scores by an average of 2.6 points

21. Summer 2011Algebra Proficiency Results 2
• 75 students enrolled in Algebra Proficiency
• 88% were promoted to Geometry
• Due to both summer Algebra Proficiency and the Algebra
Proficiency exam, 223 students who would have normally
retaken Algebra as freshmen are taking Geometry.
• This alters their destiny, as they will be able to take Calculus
as a senior

22. 2

23. EVALUATION and Value-Added Growth Models 1
Value-added growth models are designed to answer a basic question
that has frustrated educators for decades.
How do we know if a student or group of students performed
any better than they would have anyways:
- In a different school
- Under a different curriculum
-If they were not in a particular program
-With a different teacher
Historically, our inability to answer this question has been
related to the absence of control groups.

24. Teacher/Administrator 1
Evaluation

25. 2

26. 2

27. 1

28. Legal Context for Use of Growth
Models in Evaluation
• Performance Evaluation Reform Act
(PERA) requires student growth to be a
significant factor in teacher and principal
evaluations.
• Significant factor not yet codified but likely
at least 30% of the evaluation. 50% in
state model.
• Begin using data by no later than 2016 but
can be earlier by agreement.

29. Considerations for Negotiations
• Growth data in evaluations. D219 is piloting
beginning this year.
• Four tiers in evaluations. Evaluation criteria is
bargained in D219.
• Professional development plan for teachers
needing improvement. D219 will use PAR.
• Job descriptions specifying qualifications
• Distribution of teacher ratings. Avoid over 90% of
teachers receiving excellent ratings.
• Reductions in force based on performance. Four
groupings. Annual performance rankings given to
union by 75 days before the end of school.

33. Presenter Information
Dr. Nanciann Gatta, Superintendent
nangat@d219.org
Dr. Anne Roloff, Assistant Superintendent
for Curriculum and Instruction
annrol@d219.org
John Heintz, Assistant Superintendent for
Human Resources/Chief Legal Officer
johhei@d219.org