[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-536331-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-536331-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","guidance-on-creating-a-summative-rating-in-teacher-evaluation-systems-february-2013-guidance-document-13-11","Guidance on Creating a Summative Rating in Teacher Evaluation Systems - February 2013 Guidance Document 13-11","","Guidance from the Illinois State Board of Education explains how Joint Committees can create a summative teacher rating by combining professional practice and student growth. It outlines the legal weighting requirements under PERA and Illinois Administrative Code, with student growth counting for 25% during the first two years, then 30% thereafter. The document provides decision-making considerations and two worked examples, including numerical conversions, calculations, and summative rating ranges.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/guidance-on-creating-a-summative-rating-in-teacher-evaluation-systems-february-2013-guidance-document-13-11/536331/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/guidance-on-creating-a-summative-rating-in-teacher-evaluation-systems-february-2013-guidance-document-13-11/536331.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"eBook King","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-10","2026-10-10",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What percentage weight must student growth receive in the summative rating during the first two years and thereafter?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Student growth must count for 25% of the summative rating during the first two years of implementation, increasing to 30% from the third year onward.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why is a clear, well-documented process needed when combining practice and student growth ratings?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Joint Committees must articulate and share a clear, well-documented process with teachers and evaluators so that the method for reaching the summative rating is consistent and transparent.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How is the summative rating calculated in the examples provided?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The professional practice rating is multiplied by 0.70 and the student growth rating is multiplied by 0.30, then the two results are added to produce the final summative rating.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},536331,1791689253,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,95,100,105,110,115,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":96,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},962088006270,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","Illinois State Board of Education  \nFebruary 2013 Guidance Document 13-11  \nGuidance on Creating a Summative Rating in Teacher Evaluation Systems  \nThis document is intended to provide non-regulatory guidance on the subject matter listed above. For specific questions, please contact the person(s) identified in the document.  \nGuidance on Creating a Summative Rating in Teacher Evaluation Systems  \nSubject  \nCombining teacher professional practice and student growth ratings to create a summative rating  \nType of Guidance  \nThe Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) requires that teacher evaluations “incorporate the use of data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating teacher performance into the evaluation plan”(PERA 5/24A-4[b]) .  \nIllinois Administrative Code specifies that “significant factor” will be defined as (at minimum)  \n25 percent of a teacher’s performance evaluation rating during the first two years of implementation of an evaluation system that incorporates student growth and 30 percent of a teacher’s performance evaluation rating thereafter (23 Ill. Adm. Code 50.110 [a]) . In the Model Teacher Evaluation System, student growth will comprise 50 percent of the performance rating (PERA Sec 24A-7) .  \nThis guidance supports Joint Committees in making decisions related to combining teacher professional practice and student growth ratings into a final summative rating.  \nExplanation  \nAlthough the Model Teacher Evaluation System prescribes that professional practice and student growth be rated using the same labels (excellent, proficient, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory), Joint Committees have considerable flexibility in determining how to combine practice and student growth ratings into a single, summative rating. PERA, however, does impose on Joint Committees the requirement that student growth count for 25 percent of the summative rating for the first two years of implementation, increasing to 30 percent in the third year of implementation and thereafter. (See Illinois Administrative Code, Title 23, Part 50, Section 50.110: Student Growth Components, Section a.)  \nBecause PERA requires a percentage weight for student growth, Joint Committees need to develop systems for weighting student growth that meet the minimum requirements. This guidance lays out a few options using a percentage weight for student growth.  \nRegardless of the process and systems that the Joint Committee prescribes for coming to a summative rating, it is essential that a clear, well-documented process is articulated and shared with teachers and evaluators.  \nExamples  \nThe following two examples indicate how a district could combine professional practice ratings with student growth ratings to come to a summative rating.  \nExample 1  \nTeacher Practice and Student Growth Ratings for Teacher A  \nTeacher A received a professional practice rating of proficient based on the district’s four-level system for rating teacher practice. For purposes of calculating summative ratings, the district defines proficient as 3 points out of a possible 4.  \nTeacher A received a student growth rating of needs improvement based on the district’s four-level system for rating student growth. For purposes of calculating summative ratings, the district defines needs improvement as 2 points out of a possible 4.  \nCalculating the Summative Rating  \nThe professional practice rating is multiplied by .70, since it counts as 70 percent of the summative rating. The student growth rating is multiplied by .30, since it counts as 30 percent of the summative rating.  \nProfessional practice rating: (3/4 x .70)=.525  \nStudent growth rating: (2/4 x .30)=0.15  \nThe two numbers are added together for a total of .675  \nThe Joint Committee defined the following ranges for each summative rating (see Table 1) .  \nTable 1. Ranges for Summative Ratings  \n\n| Summative Rating | Range |\n| --- | --- |\n| Excellent | > .9 |\n| Proficient | .6–.89 |\n| Needs improvement |","cbCaim7fceBwVRQW","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaim7fceBwVRQW","pdf",156764,"English","# Combining Teacher Professional Practice and Student Growth Ratings\n## Legal Weighting Requirements (PERA and Illinois Administrative Code)\n## Developing a Percentage-Weighted Student Growth System\n## Requirement for Clear, Documented Processes\n# Examples for Calculating Summative Ratings\n## Example 1: Teacher A (Proficient)\n## Example 2: Teacher B (Proficient)","[{\"question\":\"What percentage weight must student growth receive in the summative rating during the first two years and thereafter?\",\"answer\":\"Student growth must count for 25% of the summative rating during the first two years of implementation, increasing to 30% from the third year onward.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is a clear, well-documented process needed when combining practice and student growth ratings?\",\"answer\":\"Joint Committees must articulate and share a clear, well-documented process with teachers and evaluators so that the method for reaching the summative rating is consistent and transparent.\"},{\"question\":\"How is the summative rating calculated in the examples provided?\",\"answer\":\"The professional practice rating is multiplied by 0.70 and the student growth rating is multiplied by 0.30, then the two results are added to produce the final summative rating.\"}]","Guidance on Creating a Summative Rating in Teacher Evaluation Systems - February 2013 Guidance Document 13-11 | PDF",1791602390,13]