Leadership Matters - February 2013

Senate Bill 7: Growing pains By Dr. Richard Voltz Associate Director of Professional Development

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

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

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 (Continued on page 24)

12