§50.210. Components of the State Performance Evaluation Model

 

A school district shall conform to the requirements of this Section for any portion of the performance evaluation plan outlined in Section 50.110 for which its joint committee could not reach agreement pursuant to Section 24A-4(b) of the School Code.

 

a)         Any joint committee that cannot agree to the percentage of student growth that shall comprise the performance evaluation rating assigned shall adopt a performance evaluation plan in which student growth is 50 percent of the performance evaluation rating assigned.  (See Section 50.110(a) of this Part and Section 24A-7 of the School Code.)

 

b)         Any joint committee that cannot agree upon one or both of the assessments required under Section 50.110(b)(2) and (3) shall employ a student learning objective (SLO) process to identify how student growth will be measured for the applicable category of teacher (e.g., career and technical education, grade 2) for which no agreement is reached.  The SLO process shall include at least the information listed in Section 50.220.

 

1)         Teachers in the category for which agreement was not reached, or their representatives, shall recommend at least two but no more than four SLOs in response to each assessment (i.e., the assessment type (Type I, Type II or Type III) and specific instrument to be used) for which no agreement was reached.  The qualified evaluator shall choose the SLO to be used in the performance evaluation from among the options presented by the teachers. The learning goal, assessment and growth expectation that comprise the SLO shall conform to the provisions of this subsection (b)(1).

 

A)        Each learning goal of the SLO shall be aligned to the needs of the teacher's students or the classroom and shall be based on:

 

i)          schoolwide or districtwide initiatives that address the content of the learning goal; and/or

 

ii)         the school improvement plan, as the plan may relate to the content of the learning goal.

 

B)        The assessment of the SLO shall support and measure the applicable learning goal identified pursuant to subsection (b)(1)(A).  An adaptive conditional measurement model shall be employed to determine student growth specific to the learning goal being measured.

 

i)          Any assessment identified under this subsection (b)(1)(B) shall not be the same assessment upon which the joint committee could not reach agreement.

 

ii)         If two assessments are to be identified under this subsection (b)(1)(B), then at least one shall be used by more than one teacher in the building or across the district, or by students in one grade level or course, if there is no more than one teacher in a particular category (e.g., career and technical education, grade 2). 

 

C)        The growth expectations for the applicable learning goal shall be aligned to the needs of the teacher's classroom and students.  Growth expectations also shall be reviewed at the midpoint of the interval of instruction and modified as may be necessary, provided that the teacher and the qualified evaluator mutually agree to any modifications to be made.

 

D)        In the event that the qualified evaluator determines that one or more of the SLOs do not meet the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(A), the qualified evaluator shall request that the teacher or teacher representatives propose an alternative to each SLO that the qualified evaluator finds inadequate.  The qualified evaluator shall choose the SLO to be used in the performance evaluation either from among those SLOs developed under this subsection or those proposed under subsection (b)(1).

 

2)         Results from each assessment shall constitute 50 percent of the final student growth rating to be assigned.

 

3)         The teacher and the qualified educator shall agree in writing to the determinations made pursuant to subsection (b)(1).

 

c)         Any joint committee that agrees to the assessment to be used but cannot agree to the measurement model, as required under Section 50.110(b)(1), shall employ an adaptive conditional measurement model to determine student growth specific to the student growth expectations identified pursuant to Section 50.110(b)(4).

 

d)         Any joint committee that cannot agree to a process to consider certain student characteristics (e.g., special education placement, English learners, low-income populations) in each measurement model as required under Section 50.110(c) shall employ an SLO process as set forth in this Section to make that determination.

 

e)         Any joint committee that cannot agree to the rating scale to be used to determine the student growth rating to be assigned pursuant to Section 50.110(d) shall meet the requirements of this subsection (e).  The determination of the student growth rating to be assigned shall be made by totaling the percentage of students meeting the growth expectation from each assessment used to determine student growth and averaging that result, rounding to the nearest whole number. 

 

1)         In the initial three years after a school district's implementation date for a performance evaluation system under Section 50.20, the rating scale shall meet the requirements of this subsection (e)(1).

 

A)        In instances in which less than 25 percent of students met the growth expectation identified pursuant to subsection (b), the teacher shall be assigned a student growth rating of "unsatisfactory".

 

B)        In instances in which at least 25 percent but no more than 50 percent of students met the growth expectation identified pursuant to subsection (b), the teacher shall be assigned a student growth rating of "needs improvement".

 

C)        In instances in which at least 51 percent but no more than 75 percent of the students met the growth expectation identified pursuant to subsection (b), the teacher shall be assigned a student growth rating of "proficient".

 

D)        In instances in which 76 percent or more of the students met the growth expectation identified pursuant to subsection (b), the teacher shall be assigned a student growth rating of "excellent".

 

2)         Starting in the fourth year of a school district's implementation of a performance evaluation system under Section 50.20, the rating scale shall meet the requirements of this subsection (e)(2).

 

A)        In instances in which less than 40 percent of students met the growth expectation identified pursuant to subsection (b), the teacher shall be assigned a student growth rating of "unsatisfactory".

 

B)        In instances in which at least 40 percent but no more than 59 percent of students met the growth expectation identified pursuant to subsection (b), the teacher shall be assigned a student growth rating of "needs improvement".

 

C)        In instances in which at least 60 percent but no more than 79 percent of the students met the growth expectation identified pursuant to subsection (b), the teacher shall be assigned a student growth rating of "proficient".

 

D)        In instances in which 80 percent or more of the students met the growth expectation identified pursuant to subsection (b), the teacher shall be assigned a student growth rating of "excellent".

 

(Source:  Amended at 46 Ill. Reg. 8142, effective May 2, 2022)