20
For years I have listened to
and
participated
in
conversations among school
administrators
about
the
perceived fact that poor and
unsatisfactory teachers could
not be removed from their
positions because of the Illinois
teacher tenure law. Illinois
newspaper
reporter
Scott
Reeder did a newspaper series
in 2005 on why tenure teachers
were not released in Illinois
Reeder made many critical
points about why tenured teachers in Illinois have not
been fired in the past, including: 1) extreme high cost
for lawyers and possible teacher buyout (2005 record
of cost was $220,000 per case); 2) extensive amount
of time the school administrator will have to dedicate
to the process; 3) a 50/50 chance of winning the case
when it goes to arbitration; and 4) several court cases
losses for the firing of tenure teachers.
Senate Bill 7 has changed many of the processes
and procedures related to teacher evaluation. First
and foremost, teacher evaluation has changed to a
performance-based system. This means teachers
must be evaluated not only on the way they practice
(actual work in the classroom), but also on the growth
of their students. The chart on this page illustrates
the fact that SB 7 has changed some things, while
other things have remained the same. (Special
thanks to attorney David Braun, who helped compile
the two lists).
So just how has teacher evaluation gotten better?
How is it more accountable?
In training thousands of Illinois teacher evaluators
during the past several years I have been advocating
for more teacher observations, both formal and
informal. The most important components in the
process are the collection of valid evidence related to
the Danielson Frameworks for Teaching (FFT) and
the subsequent reflective conversations the teacher
evaluator needs to have with the teacher. The
reflective conversation needs to center on the
improvement of the teacher’s pedagogical
performance and subsequent student growth.
It is very important that teacher evaluators
concentrate on specific aspects of the FFT, focusing
observations on one Domain/Component at a time.
Then the evaluator must sit down with the teacher --
preferably in the teacher’s own classroom -- and
discuss what was observed.
Any teacher behavior that is judged to be less
than excellent then needs a reflective question asked
by the evaluator to the teacher encouraging the
teacher to form a solution that they can commit to
and will do to improve their own teaching. The real
power of any evaluation system is improving
performance. The teacher needs to generate the
interest, the knowledge and the passion to improve
(Continued on page 21)
Now is the time to put ‘Accountability’ into teacher evaluation
Dr. Richard Voltz
IASA Associate
Director/
Professional
Development
SB 7 has changed the following processes:
Reduction in Force (RIF) may now intercede a
dismissal process (if a teacher is rated as Need-
ing Improvement or Unsatisfactory and is placed
in Group 2 for RIF purposes, the teacher loses
their position with no call-back privileges at the
time of the RIF);
Teacher evaluations now impact the district RIF
process;
There is an extra step (board hearing) before
post-dismissal hearing with a hearing officer;
There is a procedural step following the hearing
officer opinion (the decisions returns to the
Board of Education);
ISBE now has the option to pull a certificate of a
teacher who is given two unsatisfactory summa-
tive ratings;
Two additional joint committees have rules that
impact evaluation procedure (RIF Joint Commit-
tee and PERA Joint Committee); and
Teacher evaluators must be pre-qualified
SB 7 has not changed other things, such as:
Evaluators are still required to prove adequate
evaluation;
Fundamental fairness still applies;
The burden of proof still falls upon the evaluator
to prove the employee’s conduct (or miscon-
duct); and
The hearing officer still has the authority to re-
view all the evidence, and formal rules of evi-
dence do not apply
