Leadership Matters - January 2013

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:

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

Feature

Professional Development Plan

Remediation Plan

When must plan be imple- mented? Who creates the plan?

Within 30 days after the completion of the evaluation The evaluator, in consultation with the teacher

Within 30 days after the completion of the evaluation

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 The teacher, an evaluator, and a consulting teacher

Who must participate in the plan? Must the teacher’s ongoing professional responsibilities, including his or her teaching assignments, be consid- ered? What must the plan address?

The teacher and an evaluator

Yes

No

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 Within 10 days after the conclusion of the respective remediation plan

When must subsequent eval- uations under the plan be issued? Who must conduct evalua- tions under the plan?

Not specified

Not specified

The evaluator

(Continued on page 14)

13