8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
1/13
Race to the Top UpdateRace to the Top UpdateIllinois Education Association
Representative AssemblyMarch 2010
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
2/13
Why engage?Why engage?
y State was going to apply
y Full court press when Governors officeand legislators became involved
y Funding allies involved
y Legislation was going to be passed
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
3/13
State DataState Data
y Districts signed on: 366
y IEA unions signing on MOU 1: 181
y IEA signing on MOU 2: 8
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
4/13
State Map representingState Map representingParticipationParticipation
Red dots representUnion and District
Sign on MOU 2
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
5/13
National DataNational Data
y 41 states applied in Phase Oney
31 had state affiliate signatures
y The reason state affiliates did not sign on: Didnt see the plan Were not involved in conversation aboutdevelopment
Contained reforms they did not agree with:performance pay
Collective bargaining rights were not protected
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
6/13
Reasons for SupportReasons for Support
y Needed resources to participating schoolsand districts
y Collective bargaining rights protected andrespected
y Collaborative process in the development and
collaborative structures built into plan
y Recognition of the need to improve educationand to be part of the process
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
7/13
Finalists for FundingFinalists for Funding
y 16 states are finalists and participated in
the review panel interviews
y 11 of the finalists had state affiliatesupport
y 3 states had the state associationrepresented on the review team:
y Colorado, Delaware, and Illinois
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
8/13
RTTT Performance EvaluationRTTT Performance EvaluationLegislationLegislation
y Legislation consistent with Priority One
and IEAs public comments posted andapproved by the Board ofDirectors.
y Consistent with NEAs recommendations
for accountability
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
9/13
Key ComponentsKey Components
y Student growth will be used to inform
teacher evaluation Multiple measures must be used ISAT and Prairie State cannot be used
y Joint labor/management Committee to
determine substance not just process
y If joint committee cannot reach agreement management cannot impose areas ofdisagreement default to state plan
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
10/13
More Performance EvaluationMore Performance EvaluationLegislationLegislation
y All evaluators must pass an independently
developed pre-qualified assessmentbefore they can complete evaluations.
y All evaluators must be trained.
y Peer evaluation is allowed if union agrees.
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
11/13
Important SafeguardsImportant Safeguards
y An outside study must be completed on theeffectiveness of using student growth inevaluation by 2014.
y Full implementation cannot occur unlessthere is sustainable and adequate fundingwritten into law.
y ISBE fulfills all of its responsibilities whichinclude a climate survey at the building levelto assess working conditions
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
12/13
More SafeguardsMore Safeguards
y Rules will be worked out by the Performance
Evaluation Advisory Committee whichincludes union and teacher representation
y Will address student characteristics such as: ELL
Attendance
Mobility
Special Education
8/9/2019 Race to the Top Update RA
13/13
TimelinesTimelines
y Finalists were interviewed on Tuesday and
Wednesday of this week
y States will be notified sometime the firstweek of April.
y Phase 2 applications will be due in June.