Page 12 - Leadership Matters February 2013_3140b78f.pub
Basic HTML Version
12
Senate Bill 7: Growing pains
By Dr. Richard Voltz
Associate Director
of Professional Development
The Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA)
(Senate Bill 315; Public Act 96-0861) was passed by
the Illinois General Assembly and signed by the
Governor in January 2010. In summary, PERA
requires performance evaluations of the principal/
assistant principal and teachers in every school district
and must include data and indicators of student growth
as a significant factor. It also requires a four rating
category system and prescribed training for all
principal and teacher evaluators.
Senate Bill 7 (SB 7) was signed into law by the
Governor on June 13, 2011. SB 7 addresses, among
other things:
A standard upon which
the
State
Superintendent
may
initiate
certificate/
license action against
an
educator
for
incompetency;
Requirements for the
filling of new and
vacant positions;
Acquisition of tenure;
Reductions in force/layoffs and recall rights;
The system for the dismissal of tenured teachers;
Required school board member training; and,
Processes related to collective bargaining and the
right to strike.
ISBE subsequently prepared the Part 50 Rules that
define the procedures for implementation of PERA and
SB 7. There are 138 “shalls” in the Part 50 Rules. The
following is a list of potential issues that could cause
the most problems as Illinois educators prepare to
implement all sections of this new law prior to
September 2016:
1. The collective bargaining implications as the result
of these new rules.
2. The difficulty in rating teaching based on at least
30% students’ academic growth.
3. Interpretation of what “Distinguished” means in the
Frameworks for Teaching (FFT).
4. Following the required teacher evaluation training
for all teacher evaluators, the actual competencies
needed to do this work to actually improve teaching
and learning and determine the professional
teaching practice rating for the teacher.
5. Teacher evaluators finding the time that will be
required to do the teacher performance-based
evaluation with veracity.
6. To arrive at a joint decision on how to summative
rate the teacher using professional practice and
student growth.
The collective bargaining implications as a result
of these laws
Collective bargaining on the implications of SB 7, in
my opinion, is the most difficult bargaining issue
administrators will face in their careers. There has
already been more strike and strike threatening activity
this school year than there has been in the last several
years. This contentious bargaining is probably due to
two main factors: 1) lack of
money at the district level;
and 2) conversation about
changing
the
teacher
performance
evaluation
system. This will only get
more contentious as we get
closer to the 2016 deadline
of full implementation.
The recently published study
by The Illinois Education
Research Council and the
University of Chicago titled “Designing and
Implementing the Next Generation of Teacher
Evaluation Systems: Lessons Learned from Five Case
Studies in Five Illinois Districts” determined four major
challenges. They are: Cultivating Buy-In and
Understanding; Using Evaluations for Instructional
Improvement; Reducing the Burden on Principals; and
Incorporating Student Growth into Teacher Evaluation
Systems.
Concerning the first challenge, administrators need
to include stakeholders in every step of this journey.
When training administrators, train teacher leaders
also. When practicing how to gather evidence, include
teacher leaders in the process. When choosing
assessments and student growth models, include
teachers from the very beginning. This is absolutely
one topic that administrators and teachers need to
reach consensus on before implementation.
The difficulty in rating teaching based on at least
30% students’ academic growth
The key provision in this new evaluation paradigm
is the law requirement that teachers be evaluated
