Page 13 - Leadership Matters monthly magazine template January 2013

13
Legally Speaking: Professional
development plans as evaluation tool
This White Paper addresses a new evaluation tool that school districts are
required to use under recent changes to the Illinois School Code: the
“professional development plan.” School districts are required to implement
professional development plans under the Performance Evaluation Reform Act
(PERA), which was enacted January 15, 2010. 2009 Ill. Laws 8655-8675 P.A.
96-861 (S.B. 315). Along with two laws enacted shortly thereafter, known as
Senate Bill 7 and House Bill 1197, PERA transformed the way school districts
handle teacher evaluations. Senate Bill 7, Pub. Act 97-0008 (June 13, 2011);
House Bill 1197, Pub. Act 97-0007 (June 13, 2011).
Under PERA, schools must rate teachers under the now familiar standards
of “excellent,” “proficient,” “needs improvement,” or “unsatisfactory.” Within 30
school days after evaluating a teacher as “needs improvement,” a “professional
development plan” must be developed for the teacher. 105 ILCS 5/24A-5(h).
The plan must be developed by the teacher’s evaluator, in consultation with the
teacher; must take into account the teacher’s ongoing professional
responsibilities, including his or her regular teaching assignments; and must be
directed to the areas that need improvement and any supports that the district
will provide to address the areas identified as needing improvement. Id.
The professional development plan is in contrast to the “remediation plan”
that PERA requires be implemented within 30 days after evaluating a teacher
as “unsatisfactory.” See 105 ILCS 5/24A-5(i). The following chart distinguishes
the features of the professional development plan and the remediation plan:
(Continued on page 14)
Feature Professional Development Plan Remediation Plan
When must plan be imple-
mented?
Within 30 days after the completion of
the evaluation
Within 30 days after the completion of the
evaluation
Who creates the plan? The evaluator, in consultation with the
teacher
The district
How long must the plan be? Not specified 90 school days of remediation in the class-
room, unless an applicable collective bar-
gaining agreement provides for a shorter
duration
Who must participate in the
plan?
The teacher and an evaluator The teacher, an evaluator, and a consulting
teacher
Must the teacher’s ongoing
professional responsibilities,
including his or her teaching
assignments, be consid-
ered?
Yes No
What must the plan address? The areas that need improvement and
any supports that the district will pro-
vide to address the areas identified as
needing improvement
The deficiencies that must be corrected
Must evaluations be complet-
ed during and after the plan?
Not specified Yes – a mid-point and final evaluation dur-
ing and at the end of the remediation plan,
immediately following receipt of a remedia-
tion plan
When must subsequent eval-
uations under the plan be
issued?
Not specified Within 10 days after the conclusion of the
respective remediation plan
Who must conduct evalua-
tions under the plan?
Not specified The evaluator
This article was co-authored by
Shelli L. Anderson and Dana
Fattore Crumley, partners in
Franczek Radelet P.C., a Chica-
go law firm that specializes in
labor law. Ms. Anderson and
Ms. Crumley both represent
school districts with respect to
general education law. Ms. An-
derson’s emphasis is on em-
ployment and labor matters,
while Ms. Crumley’s ‘s empha-
sis is employment and person-
nel matters, special education,
student discipline, and school
board policy and governance.
This article was co-
authored by Shelli L.
Anderson and D na
Fatt e Crumley, partners
in Franczek Radelet P.C.,
a Chicago law firm that
specializes in education
law. Both Ms. Anderson
and Ms. Crumley work
extensively with Illinois
school districts on a broad
array of teacher personnel
matters, includin t acher
evaluation, discipline,
dismissal, and fitness for
duty issues.
Anderson Crumley