Leadership Matters February 2014

Now is the time to put ‘Accountability’ into teacher evaluation

For years I have listened to 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 titled “ The Hidden Costs of Tenure .” Reeder made many critical and participated

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)  The hearing officer still has the authority to re- view all the evidence, and formal rules of evi- dence do not apply 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

Dr. Richard Voltz IASA Associate Director/ Professional Development

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 including Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District No. 54 v. Spangler . This major teacher dismissal case was seen as huge 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

20