SB0028enr 104TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

SB0028 Enrolled LRB104 07498 LNS 17542 b

AN ACT concerning education.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The School Code is amended by changing Sections 24-16.5, 24A-2.5, 24A-4, 24A-5, 24A-7, 24A-15, 24A-20, 34-8, and 34-85c as follows:

(105 ILCS 5/24-16.5)

Sec. 24-16.5. Optional alternative evaluative dismissal process for PERA evaluations.

(a) As used in this Section:

"Applicable hearing requirements" means (i) for any school district having less than 500,000 inhabitants or a program of a special education joint agreement, those procedures and requirements relating to a teacher's request for a hearing, selection of a hearing officer, pre-hearing and hearing procedures, and post-hearing briefs set forth in paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (d) of Section 24-12 of this Code or (ii) for a school district having 500,000 inhabitants or more, those procedures and requirements relating to a teacher's request for a hearing, selection of a hearing officer, pre-hearing and hearing procedures, and post-hearing briefs set forth in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a) of Section 34-85 of this Code.

"Board" means, for a school district having less than 500,000 inhabitants or a program of a special education joint agreement, the board of directors, board of education, or board of school inspectors, as the case may be. For a school district having 500,000 inhabitants or more, "board" means the Chicago Board of Education.

"Evaluator" means an evaluator, as defined in Section 24A-2.5 of this Code, who has successfully completed the pre-qualification program described in subsection (b) of Section 24A-3 of this Code.

"PERA-trained board member" means a member of a board that has completed a training program on PERA evaluations either administered or approved by the State Board of Education.

"PERA evaluation" means a performance evaluation of a teacher after the implementation date of an evaluation system for teachers, as specified by Section 24A-2.5 of this Code, using a performance evaluation instrument and process that meets the minimum requirements for teacher evaluation instruments and processes set forth in rules adopted by the State Board of Education to implement Public Act 96-861.

"Remediation" means the remediation plan, mid-point and final evaluations, and related processes and requirements set forth in subdivisions (i), (j), and (k) of Section 24A-5 of this Code.

"School district" means a school district or a program of a special education joint agreement.

"Second evaluator" means an evaluator who either conducts the mid-point and final remediation evaluation or conducts an independent assessment of whether the teacher completed the remediation plan with a rating equal to or better than a "Proficient" rating, all in accordance with subdivision (c) of this Section.

"Student growth components" means the components of a performance evaluation plan described in subdivision (c) of Section 24A-5 of this Code, as may be supplemented by administrative rules adopted by the State Board of Education.

"Teacher practice components" means the components of a performance evaluation plan described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 24A-5 of this Code, as may be supplemented by administrative rules adopted by the State Board of Education.

"Teacher representatives" means the exclusive bargaining representative of a school district's teachers or, if no exclusive bargaining representatives exists, a representative committee selected by teachers.

(b) This Section applies to all school districts, including those having 500,000 or more inhabitants. The optional dismissal process set forth in this Section is an alternative to those set forth in Sections 24-12 and 34-85 of this Code. Nothing in this Section is intended to change the existing practices or precedents under Section 24-12 or 34-85 of this Code, nor shall this Section be interpreted as implying standards and procedures that should or must be used as part of a remediation that precedes a dismissal sought under Section 24-12 or 34-85 of this Code.

A board may dismiss a teacher who has entered upon contractual continued service under this Section if the following are met:

(1) the cause of dismissal is that the teacher has failed to complete a remediation plan with a rating equal to or better than a "Proficient" rating;

(2) the "Unsatisfactory" performance evaluation rating that preceded remediation resulted from a PERA evaluation; and

(3) the school district has complied with subsection (c) of this Section.

A school district may not, through agreement with a teacher or its teacher representatives, waive its right to dismiss a teacher under this Section.

(c) Each school district electing to use the dismissal process set forth in this Section must comply with the pre-remediation and remediation activities and requirements set forth in this subsection (c).

(1) Before a school district's first remediation relating to a dismissal under this Section, the school district must create and establish a list of at least 2 evaluators who will be available to serve as second evaluators under this Section. The school district shall provide its teacher representatives with an opportunity to submit additional names of teacher evaluators who will be available to serve as second evaluators and who will be added to the list created and established by the school district, provided that, unless otherwise agreed to by the school district, the teacher representatives may not submit more teacher evaluators for inclusion on the list than the number of evaluators submitted by the school district. Each teacher evaluator must either have (i) National Board of Professional Teaching Standards certification, with no "Unsatisfactory" or "Needs Improvement" performance evaluating ratings in his or her 2 most recent performance evaluation ratings; or (ii) "Excellent" performance evaluation ratings in 2 of his or her 3 most recent performance evaluations, with no "Needs Improvement" or "Unsatisfactory" performance evaluation ratings in his or her last 3 ratings. If the teacher representatives do not submit a list of teacher evaluators within 21 days after the school district's request, the school district may proceed with a remediation using a list that includes only the school district's selections. Either the school district or the teacher representatives may revise or add to their selections for the list at any time with notice to the other party, subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph (1).

(2) Before a school district's first remediation relating to a dismissal under this Section, the school district shall, in good faith cooperation with its teacher representatives, establish a process for the selection of a second evaluator from the list created pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection (c). Such process may be amended at any time in good faith cooperation with the teacher representatives. If the teacher representatives are given an opportunity to cooperate with the school district and elect not to do so, the school district may, at its discretion, establish or amend the process for selection. Before the hearing officer and as part of any judicial review of a dismissal under this Section, a teacher may not challenge a remediation or dismissal on the grounds that the process used by the school district to select a second evaluator was not established in good faith cooperation with its teacher representatives.

(3) For each remediation preceding a dismissal under this Section, the school district shall select a second evaluator from the list of second evaluators created pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection (c), using the selection process established pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection (c). The selected second evaluator may not be the same individual who determined the teacher's "Unsatisfactory" performance evaluation rating preceding remediation, and, if the second evaluator is an administrator, may not be a direct report to the individual who determined the teacher's "Unsatisfactory" performance evaluation rating preceding remediation. The school district's authority to select a second evaluator from the list of second evaluators must not be delegated or limited through any agreement with the teacher representatives, provided that nothing shall prohibit a school district and its teacher representatives from agreeing to a formal peer evaluation process as permitted under Article 24A of this Code that could be used to meet the requirements for the selection of second evaluators under this subsection (c).

(4) The second evaluator selected pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subsection (c) must either (i) conduct the mid-point and final evaluation during remediation or (ii) conduct an independent assessment of whether the teacher completed the remediation plan with a rating equal to or better than a "Proficient" rating, which independent assessment shall include, but is not limited to, personal or video-recorded observations of the teacher that relate to the teacher practice components of the remediation plan. Nothing in this subsection (c) shall be construed to limit or preclude the participation of the evaluator who rated a teacher as "Unsatisfactory" in remediation.

(d) To institute a dismissal proceeding under this Section, the board must first provide written notice to the teacher within 30 days after the completion of the final remediation evaluation. The notice shall comply with the applicable hearing requirements and, in addition, must specify that dismissal is sought under this Section and include a copy of each performance evaluation relating to the scope of the hearing as described in this subsection (d).

The applicable hearing requirements shall apply to the teacher's request for a hearing, the selection and qualifications of the hearing officer, and pre-hearing and hearing procedures, except that all of the following must be met:

(1) The hearing officer must, in addition to meeting the qualifications set forth in the applicable hearing requirements, have successfully completed the pre-qualification program described in subsection (b) of Section 24A-3 of this Code, unless the State Board of Education waives this requirement to provide an adequate pool of hearing officers for consideration.

(2) The scope of the hearing must be limited as follows:

(A) The school district must demonstrate the following:

(i) that the "Unsatisfactory" performance evaluation rating that preceded remediation applied the teacher practice components and student growth components, if any, and determined an overall evaluation rating of "Unsatisfactory" in accordance with the standards and requirements of the school district's evaluation plan;

(ii) that the remediation plan complied with the requirements of Section 24A-5 of this Code;

(iii) that the teacher failed to complete the remediation plan with a performance evaluation rating equal to or better than a "Proficient" rating, based upon a final remediation evaluation meeting the applicable standards and requirements of the school district's evaluation plan; and

(iv) that if the second evaluator selected pursuant to paragraph (3) of subsection (c) of this Section does not conduct the mid-point and final evaluation and makes an independent assessment that the teacher completed the remediation plan with a rating equal to or better than a "Proficient" rating, the school district must demonstrate that the final remediation evaluation is a more valid assessment of the teacher's performance than the assessment made by the second evaluator.

(B) The teacher may only challenge the substantive and procedural aspects of (i) the "Unsatisfactory" performance evaluation rating that led to the remediation, (ii) the remediation plan, and (iii) the final remediation evaluation. To the extent the teacher challenges procedural aspects, including any in applicable collective bargaining agreement provisions, of a relevant performance evaluation rating or the remediation plan, the teacher must demonstrate how an alleged procedural defect materially affected the teacher's ability to demonstrate a level of performance necessary to avoid remediation or dismissal or successfully complete the remediation plan. Without any such material effect, a procedural defect shall not impact the assessment by the hearing officer, board, or reviewing court of the validity of a performance evaluation or a remediation plan.

(C) The hearing officer shall only consider and give weight to performance evaluations relevant to the scope of the hearing as described in clauses (A) and (B) of this subdivision (2).

(3) Each party shall be given only 2 days to present evidence and testimony relating to the scope of the hearing, unless a longer period is mutually agreed to by the parties or deemed necessary by the hearing officer to enable a party to present adequate evidence and testimony to address the scope of the hearing, including due to the other party's cross-examination of the party's witnesses.

(e) The provisions of Sections 24-12 and 34-85 pertaining to the decision or recommendation of the hearing officer do not apply to dismissal proceedings under this Section. For any dismissal proceedings under this Section, the hearing officer shall not issue a decision, and shall issue only findings of fact and a recommendation, including the reasons therefor, to the board to either retain or dismiss the teacher and shall give a copy of the report to both the teacher and the superintendent of the school district. The hearing officer's findings of fact and recommendation must be issued within 30 days from the close of the record of the hearing.

The State Board of Education shall adopt rules regarding the length of the hearing officer's findings of fact and recommendation. If a hearing officer fails without good cause, specifically provided in writing to both parties and the State Board of Education, to render a recommendation within 30 days after the hearing is concluded or the record is closed, whichever is later, the parties may mutually agree to select a hearing officer pursuant to the alternative procedure, as provided in Section 24-12 or 34-85, to rehear the charges heard by the hearing officer who failed to render a recommendation or to review the record and render a recommendation. If any hearing officer fails without good cause, specifically provided in writing to both parties and the State Board of Education, to render a recommendation within 30 days after the hearing is concluded or the record is closed, whichever is later, the hearing officer shall be removed from the master list of hearing officers maintained by the State Board of Education for not more than 24 months. The parties and the State Board of Education may also take such other actions as it deems appropriate, including recovering, reducing, or withholding any fees paid or to be paid to the hearing officer. If any hearing officer repeats such failure, he or she shall be permanently removed from the master list of hearing officers maintained by the State Board of Education.

(f) The board, within 45 days after receipt of the hearing officer's findings of fact and recommendation, shall decide, through adoption of a written order, whether the teacher must be dismissed from its employ or retained, provided that only PERA-trained board members may participate in the vote with respect to the decision.

If the board dismisses the teacher notwithstanding the hearing officer's recommendation of retention, the board shall make a conclusion, giving its reasons therefor, and such conclusion and reasons must be included in its written order. The failure of the board to strictly adhere to the timelines contained in this Section does not render it without jurisdiction to dismiss the teacher. The board shall not lose jurisdiction to discharge the teacher if the hearing officer fails to render a recommendation within the time specified in this Section. The decision of the board is final, unless reviewed as provided in subsection (g) of this Section.

If the board retains the teacher, the board shall enter a written order stating the amount of back pay and lost benefits, less mitigation, to be paid to the teacher, within 45 days of its retention order.

(g) A teacher dismissed under this Section may apply for and obtain judicial review of a decision of the board in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Review Law, except as follows:

(1) for a teacher dismissed by a school district having 500,000 inhabitants or more, such judicial review must be taken directly to the appellate court of the judicial district in which the board maintains its primary administrative office, and any direct appeal to the appellate court must be filed within 35 days from the date that a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed was served upon the teacher;

(2) for a teacher dismissed by a school district having less than 500,000 inhabitants after the hearing officer recommended dismissal, such judicial review must be taken directly to the appellate court of the judicial district in which the board maintains its primary administrative office, and any direct appeal to the appellate court must be filed within 35 days from the date that a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed was served upon the teacher; and

(3) for all school districts, if the hearing officer recommended dismissal, the decision of the board may be reversed only if it is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law.

In the event judicial review is instituted by a teacher, any costs of preparing and filing the record of proceedings must be paid by the teacher. If a decision of the board is adjudicated upon judicial review in favor of the teacher, then the court shall remand the matter to the board with direction for entry of an order setting the amount of back pay, lost benefits, and costs, less mitigation. The teacher may challenge the board's order setting the amount of back pay, lost benefits, and costs, less mitigation, through an expedited arbitration procedure with the costs of the arbitrator borne by the board.

(Source: P.A. 97-8, eff. 6-13-11; 98-513, eff. 1-1-14.)

(105 ILCS 5/24A-2.5)

Sec. 24A-2.5. Definitions. In this Article:

"Evaluator" means:

(1) an administrator qualified under Section 24A-3; or

(2) other individuals qualified under Section 24A-3, provided that, if such other individuals are in the bargaining unit of a district's teachers, the district and the exclusive bargaining representative of that unit must agree to those individuals evaluating other bargaining unit members.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in item (2) of this definition, a school district operating under Article 34 of this Code may require department chairs qualified under Section 24A-3 to evaluate teachers in their department or departments, provided that the school district shall bargain with the bargaining representative of its teachers over the impact and effects on department chairs of such a requirement.

"Implementation date" means, unless otherwise specified and provided that the requirements set forth in subsection (d) of Section 24A-20 have been met:

(1) For school districts having 500,000 or more inhabitants, in at least 300 schools by September 1, 2012 and in the remaining schools by September 1, 2013.

(2) For school districts having less than 500,000 inhabitants and receiving a Race to the Top Grant or School Improvement Grant after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 96th General Assembly, the date specified in those grants for implementing an evaluation system for teachers and principals incorporating student growth as a significant factor.

(3) For the lowest performing 20% percent of remaining school districts having less than 500,000 inhabitants (with the measure of and school year or years used for school district performance to be determined by the State Superintendent of Education at a time determined by the State Superintendent), September 1, 2015.

(4) For all other school districts having less than 500,000 inhabitants, September 1, 2016.

Notwithstanding items (3) and (4) of this definition, a school district and the exclusive bargaining representative of its teachers may jointly agree in writing to an earlier implementation date, provided that such date must not be earlier than September 1, 2013. The written agreement of the district and the exclusive bargaining representative must be transmitted to the State Board of Education.

"Race to the Top Grant" means a grant made by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education for the program first funded pursuant to paragraph (2) of Section 14006(a) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

"School Improvement Grant" means a grant made by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education pursuant to Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

(Source: P.A. 96-861, eff. 1-15-10; 97-8, eff. 6-13-11; revised 7-17-24.)

(105 ILCS 5/24A-4) (from Ch. 122, par. 24A-4)

Sec. 24A-4. Development of evaluation plan.

(a) As used in this and the succeeding Sections, "teacher" means any and all school district employees regularly required to be certified under laws relating to the certification of teachers. Each school district shall develop, in cooperation with its teachers or, where applicable, the exclusive bargaining representatives of its teachers, an evaluation plan for all teachers.

(b) Until July 1, 2025 By no later than the applicable implementation date, each school district shall, in good faith cooperation with its teachers or, where applicable, the exclusive bargaining representatives of its teachers, incorporate the use of data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating teaching performance, into its evaluation plan for all teachers, both those teachers in contractual continued service and those teachers not in contractual continued service. The plan shall at least meet the standards and requirements for student growth and teacher evaluation established under Section 24A-7, and specifically describe how student growth data and indicators will be used as part of the evaluation process, how this information will relate to evaluation standards, the assessments or other indicators of student performance that will be used in measuring student growth and the weight that each will have, the methodology that will be used to measure student growth, and the criteria other than student growth that will be used in evaluating the teacher and the weight that each will have.

(b-5) Beginning July 1, 2025, each school district may, in good faith cooperation with its teachers or, where applicable, with the exclusive bargaining representatives of its teachers, incorporate the use of data and indicators on student growth as a factor in rating teaching performance, into its evaluation plan for all teachers in contractual continued service and teachers not in contractual continued service. The plan shall at least meet the standards and requirements for teacher evaluations established under Section 24A-7.

To incorporate the use of data and indicators of student growth as a significant factor in rating teacher performance into the evaluation plan, the district shall use a joint committee composed of equal representation selected by the district and its teachers or, where applicable, the exclusive bargaining representative of its teachers. If, within 180 calendar days of the committee's first meeting, the committee does not reach agreement on the plan, then the district shall implement the model evaluation plan established under Section 24A-7 with respect to the use of data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating teacher performance.

Nothing in this subsection (b) shall make decisions on the use of data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating teaching performance mandatory subjects of bargaining under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act that are not currently mandatory subjects of bargaining under the Act.

The provisions of the Open Meetings Act shall not apply to meetings of a joint committee formed under this subsection (b).

(c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in subsection (b) of this Section, if the joint committee referred to in that subsection does not reach agreement on the plan within 90 calendar days after the committee's first meeting, a school district having 500,000 or more inhabitants shall not be required to implement any aspect of the model evaluation plan and may implement its last best proposal.

(d) The Beginning the first school year following the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 100th General Assembly, the joint committee referred to in subsections subsection (b) and (c) of this Section shall meet no less than one time annually to assess and review the effectiveness of the district's evaluation plan for the purposes of continuous improvement of instruction and evaluation practices.

(Source: P.A. 100-768, eff. 1-1-19.)

(105 ILCS 5/24A-5) (from Ch. 122, par. 24A-5)

Sec. 24A-5. Content of evaluation plans. This Section does not apply to teachers assigned to schools identified in an agreement entered into between the board of a school district operating under Article 34 of this Code and the exclusive representative of the district's teachers in accordance with Section 34-85c of this Code.

Each school district to which this Article applies shall establish a teacher evaluation plan which ensures that each teacher in contractual continued service is evaluated at least once in the course of every 2 or 3 school years as provided in this Section.

Each school district shall establish a teacher evaluation plan that ensures that:

(1) each teacher not in contractual continued service is evaluated at least once every school year; and

(2) except as otherwise provided in this Section, each teacher in contractual continued service is evaluated at least once in the course of every 2 school years. However, any teacher in contractual continued service whose performance is rated as either "needs improvement" or "unsatisfactory" must be evaluated at least once in the school year following the receipt of such rating.

No later than September 1, 2022, each school district must establish a teacher evaluation plan that ensures that each teacher in contractual continued service whose performance is rated as either "excellent" or "proficient" is evaluated at least once in the course of the 3 school years after receipt of the rating and implement an informal teacher observation plan established by agency rule and by agreement of the joint committee established under subsection (b) of Section 24A-4 of this Code that ensures that each teacher in contractual continued service whose performance is rated as either "excellent" or "proficient" is informally observed at least once in the course of the 2 school years after receipt of the rating.

For the 2022-2023 school year only, if the Governor has declared a disaster due to a public health emergency pursuant to Section 7 of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, a school district may waive the evaluation requirement of all teachers in contractual continued service whose performances were rated as either "excellent" or "proficient" during the last school year in which the teachers were evaluated under this Section.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section or any other Section of this Code, a principal shall not be prohibited from evaluating any teachers within a school during his or her first year as principal of such school. If a first-year principal exercises this option in a school district where the evaluation plan provides for a teacher in contractual continued service to be evaluated once in the course of every 2 or 3 school years, as applicable, then a new 2-year or 3-year evaluation plan must be established.

The evaluation plan shall comply with the requirements of this Section and of any rules adopted by the State Board of Education pursuant to this Section.

The plan shall include a description of each teacher's duties and responsibilities and of the standards to which that teacher is expected to conform, and shall include at least the following components:

(a) personal observation of the teacher in the classroom by the evaluator, unless the teacher has no classroom duties.

(b) consideration of the teacher's attendance, planning, instructional methods, classroom management, where relevant, and competency in the subject matter taught.

(c) (blank). by no later than the applicable implementation date, consideration of student growth as a significant factor in the rating of the teacher's performance.

(d) (blank). prior to September 1, 2012, rating of the performance of teachers in contractual continued service as either:

(i) "excellent", "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory"; or

(ii) "excellent", "proficient", "needs improvement" or "unsatisfactory".

(e) on and after September 1, 2012, rating of the performance of all teachers as "excellent", "proficient", "needs improvement" or "unsatisfactory".

(f) specification as to the teacher's strengths and weaknesses, with supporting reasons for the comments made.

(g) inclusion of a copy of the evaluation in the teacher's personnel file and provision of a copy to the teacher.

(h) within 30 school days after the completion of an evaluation rating a teacher in contractual continued service as "needs improvement", development by the evaluator, in consultation with the teacher, and taking into account the teacher's ongoing on-going professional responsibilities including his or her regular teaching assignments, of a professional development plan directed to the areas that need improvement and any supports that the district will provide to address the areas identified as needing improvement.

(i) within 30 school days after completion of an evaluation rating a teacher in contractual continued service as "unsatisfactory", development and commencement by the district of a remediation plan designed to correct deficiencies cited, provided the deficiencies are deemed remediable. In all school districts the remediation plan for unsatisfactory, tenured teachers shall provide for 90 school days of remediation within the classroom, unless an applicable collective bargaining agreement provides for a shorter duration. In all school districts evaluations issued pursuant to this Section shall be issued within 10 days after the conclusion of the respective remediation plan. However, the school board or other governing authority of the district shall not lose jurisdiction to discharge a teacher in the event the evaluation is not issued within 10 days after the conclusion of the respective remediation plan.

(j) participation in the remediation plan by the teacher in contractual continued service rated "unsatisfactory", an evaluator and a consulting teacher selected by the evaluator of the teacher who was rated "unsatisfactory", which consulting teacher is an educational employee as defined in the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, has at least 5 years' teaching experience, and a reasonable familiarity with the assignment of the teacher being evaluated, and who received an "excellent" rating on his or her most recent evaluation. Where no teachers who meet these criteria are available within the district, the district shall request and the applicable regional office of education shall supply, to participate in the remediation process, an individual who meets these criteria.

In a district having a population of less than 500,000 with an exclusive bargaining agent, the bargaining agent may, if it so chooses, supply a roster of qualified teachers from whom the consulting teacher is to be selected. That roster shall, however, contain the names of at least 5 teachers, each of whom meets the criteria for consulting teacher with regard to the teacher being evaluated, or the names of all teachers so qualified if that number is less than 5. In the event of a dispute as to qualification, the State Board shall determine qualification.

(k) a mid-point and final evaluation by an evaluator during and at the end of the remediation period, immediately following receipt of a remediation plan provided for under subsections (i) and (j) of this Section. Each evaluation shall assess the teacher's performance during the time period since the prior evaluation; provided that the last evaluation shall also include an overall evaluation of the teacher's performance during the remediation period. A written copy of the evaluations and ratings, in which any deficiencies in performance and recommendations for correction are identified, shall be provided to and discussed with the teacher within 10 school days after the date of the evaluation, unless an applicable collective bargaining agreement provides to the contrary. These subsequent evaluations shall be conducted by an evaluator. The consulting teacher shall provide advice to the teacher rated "unsatisfactory" on how to improve teaching skills and to successfully complete the remediation plan. The consulting teacher shall participate in developing the remediation plan, but the final decision as to the evaluation shall be done solely by the evaluator, unless an applicable collective bargaining agreement provides to the contrary. Evaluations at the conclusion of the remediation process shall be separate and distinct from the required annual evaluations of teachers and shall not be subject to the guidelines and procedures relating to those annual evaluations. The evaluator may but is not required to use the forms provided for the annual evaluation of teachers in the district's evaluation plan.

(l) reinstatement to the evaluation schedule set forth in the district's evaluation plan for any teacher in contractual continued service who achieves a rating equal to or better than "satisfactory" or "proficient" in the school year following a rating of "needs improvement" or "unsatisfactory".

(m) dismissal in accordance with subsection (d) of Section 24-12 or Section 24-16.5 or 34-85 of this Code of any teacher who fails to complete any applicable remediation plan with a rating equal to or better than a "satisfactory" or "proficient" rating. Districts and teachers subject to dismissal hearings are precluded from compelling the testimony of consulting teachers at such hearings under subsection (d) of Section 24-12 or Section 24-16.5 or 34-85 of this Code, either as to the rating process or for opinions of performances by teachers under remediation.

(n) If After the implementation date of an evaluation system for teachers in a district as specified in Section 24A-2.5 of this Code, if a teacher in contractual continued service successfully completes a remediation plan following a rating of "unsatisfactory" in an overall performance evaluation received after the foregoing implementation date and receives a subsequent rating of "unsatisfactory" in any of the teacher's overall performance evaluation ratings received during the 36-month period following the teacher's completion of the remediation plan, then the school district may forgo remediation and seek dismissal in accordance with subsection (d) of Section 24-12 or Section 34-85 of this Code.

(o) Teachers who are due to be evaluated in the last year before they are set to retire shall be offered the opportunity to waive their evaluation and to retain their most recent rating, unless the teacher was last rated as "needs improvement" or "unsatisfactory". The school district may still reserve the right to evaluate a teacher provided the district gives notice to the teacher at least 14 days before the evaluation and a reason for evaluating the teacher.

Nothing in this Section or Section 24A-4 shall be construed as preventing immediate dismissal of a teacher for deficiencies which are deemed irremediable or for actions which are injurious to or endanger the health or person of students in the classroom or school, or preventing the dismissal or non-renewal of teachers not in contractual continued service for any reason not prohibited by applicable employment, labor, and civil rights laws. Failure to strictly comply with the time requirements contained in Section 24A-5 shall not invalidate the results of the remediation plan.

Nothing contained in Public Act 98-648 repeals, supersedes, invalidates, or nullifies final decisions in lawsuits pending on July 1, 2014 (the effective date of Public Act 98-648) in Illinois courts involving the interpretation of Public Act 97-8.

If the Governor has declared a disaster due to a public health emergency pursuant to Section 7 of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act that suspends in-person instruction, the timelines in this Section connected to the commencement and completion of any remediation plan are waived. Except if the parties mutually agree otherwise and the agreement is in writing, any remediation plan that had been in place for more than 45 days prior to the suspension of in-person instruction shall resume when in-person instruction resumes and any remediation plan that had been in place for fewer than 45 days prior to the suspension of in-person instruction shall be discontinued and a new remediation period shall begin when in-person instruction resumes. The requirements of this paragraph apply regardless of whether they are included in a school district's teacher evaluation plan.

(Source: P.A. 102-252, eff. 1-1-22; 102-729, eff. 5-6-22; 103-85, eff. 6-9-23; 103-605, eff. 7-1-24; revised 8-8-24.)

(105 ILCS 5/24A-7) (from Ch. 122, par. 24A-7)

Sec. 24A-7. Rules.

(a) The State Board of Education is authorized to adopt such rules as are deemed necessary to implement and accomplish the purposes and provisions of this Article, including, but not limited to, rules:

(1) relating to the methods for measuring student growth (including, but not limited to, limitations on the age of usable data; the amount of data needed to reliably and validly measure growth for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluations; and whether and at what time annual State assessments may be used as one of multiple measures of student growth);

(2) (blank); defining the term "significant factor" for purposes of including consideration of student growth in performance ratings;

(3) controlling for such factors as student characteristics (including, but not limited to, students receiving special education and English Learner services), student attendance, and student mobility so as to best measure the impact that a teacher, principal, school and school district has on students' academic achievement;

(4) establishing minimum requirements for district teacher and principal evaluation instruments and procedures; and

(5) (blank). establishing a model evaluation plan for use by school districts in which student growth shall comprise 50% of the performance rating.

A Notwithstanding any other provision in this Section, such rules shall not preclude a school district may use having 500,000 or more inhabitants from using an annual State assessment as a the sole measure of student growth for purposes of teacher or principal evaluations.

(b) (Blank). The State Superintendent of Education shall convene a Performance Evaluation Advisory Council, which shall be staffed by the State Board of Education. Members of the Council shall be selected by the State Superintendent and include, without limitation, representatives of teacher unions and school district management, persons with expertise in performance evaluation processes and systems, as well as other stakeholders. The Council shall meet at least quarterly and may also meet at the call of the chairperson of the Council, following August 18, 2017 (the effective date of Public Act 100-211) until December 31, 2024. The Council shall advise the State Board of Education on the ongoing implementation of performance evaluations in this State, which may include gathering public feedback, sharing best practices, consulting with the State Board on any proposed rule changes regarding evaluations, and other subjects as determined by the chairperson of the Council.

(c) On July 1, 2024, the State Superintendent of Education shall convene a Performance Evaluation Advisory Committee for the purpose of maintaining and improving the evaluator training and pre-qualification program in this State under Section 24A-3. The Committee shall be staffed by the State Board of Education. Members of the Committee shall include, without limitation, representatives from providers of the evaluator retraining and pre-qualification program in this State, which include teacher unions, school district management, including a school district organized under Article 34, and a statewide organization representing regional offices of education. Members of the Committee shall be nominated by the providers and appointed by the State Superintendent.

The Committee shall meet initially at the call of the State Superintendent and shall select one member as chairperson at its initial meeting. The Committee shall meet at least quarterly and may also meet at the call of the chairperson of the Committee.

The Committee shall advise the State Board of Education on the continued implementation of the evaluator training and pre-qualification program in this State, which may include the development and delivery of the program's existing and new administrators' academies, gathering feedback from program instructors and participants, sharing best practices, consulting with the State Board on any proposed rule changes regarding evaluator training, and other subjects as determined by the chairperson of the Committee.

(d) Prior to the applicable implementation date, the rules shall not apply to teachers assigned to schools identified in an agreement entered into between the board of a school district operating under Article 34 of this Code and the exclusive representative of the district's teachers in accordance with Section 34-85c of this Code.

(Source: P.A. 102-252, eff. 1-1-22; 102-558, eff. 8-20-21; 103-617, eff. 7-1-24.)

(105 ILCS 5/24A-15)

Sec. 24A-15. Development of evaluation plan for principals and assistant principals.

(a) Each school district, except for a school district organized under Article 34 of this Code, shall establish a principal and assistant principal evaluation plan in accordance with this Section. The plan must ensure that each principal and assistant principal is evaluated as follows:

(1) For a principal or assistant principal on a single-year contract, the evaluation must take place by March 1 of each year.

(2) For a principal or assistant principal on a multi-year contract under Section 10-23.8a of this Code, the evaluation must take place by March 1 of the final year of the contract.

The On and after September 1, 2012, the plan must:

(i) rate the principal's or assistant principal's performance as "excellent", "proficient", "needs improvement" or "unsatisfactory"; and

(ii) ensure that each principal and assistant principal is evaluated at least once every school year.

Nothing in this Section prohibits a school district from conducting additional evaluations of principals and assistant principals.

For the 2022-2023 school year only, if the Governor has declared a disaster due to a public health emergency pursuant to Section 7 of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, a school district may waive the evaluation requirement of all principals or assistant principals whose performances were rated as either "excellent" or "proficient" during the last school year in which the principals or assistant principals were evaluated under this Section.

(b) The evaluation shall include a description of the principal's or assistant principal's duties and responsibilities and the standards to which the principal or assistant principal is expected to conform.

(c) The evaluation for a principal must be performed by the district superintendent, the superintendent's designee, or, in the absence of the superintendent or his or her designee, an individual appointed by the school board who holds a registered and active Professional Educator License with a principal endorsement or general administrative endorsement Type 75 State administrative certificate.

The Prior to September 1, 2012, the evaluation must be in writing and must at least do all of the following:

(1) Consider the principal's specific duties, responsibilities, management, and competence as a principal.

(2) Specify the principal's strengths and weaknesses, with supporting reasons.

(3) Align with the Illinois Professional Standards for School Leaders or research-based standards established by administrative rule.

Until July 1, 2025 On and after September 1, 2012, the evaluation must, in addition to the requirements in items (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection (c), provide for the use of data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating performance.

Beginning July 1, 2025, the evaluation must include the requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection (c). The evaluation may provide for the use of data and indicators on student growth as a factor in rating performance.

(c-5) The evaluation of an assistant principal must be performed by the principal, the district superintendent, the superintendent's designee, or, in the absence of the superintendent or his or her designee, an individual appointed by the school board who holds a registered and active Professional Educator License with a principal endorsement or general administrative endorsement Type 75 State administrative certificate. The evaluation must be in writing and must at least do all of the following:

(1) Consider the assistant principal's specific duties, responsibilities, management, and competence as an assistant principal.

(2) Specify the assistant principal's strengths and weaknesses with supporting reasons.

(3) Align with the Illinois Professional Standards for School Leaders or research-based district standards established by administrative rule.

Until July 1, 2025 On and after September 1, 2012, the evaluation must, in addition to the requirements in items (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection (c-5), provide for the use of data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating performance.

Beginning July 1, 2025, the evaluation must include the requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection (c-5). The evaluation may provide for the use of data and indicators on student growth as a factor in rating performance.

(d) One copy of the evaluation must be included in the principal's or assistant principal's personnel file and one copy of the evaluation must be provided to the principal or assistant principal.

(e) Failure by a district to evaluate a principal or assistant principal and to provide the principal or assistant principal with a copy of the evaluation at least once during the term of the principal's or assistant principal's contract, in accordance with this Section, is evidence that the principal or assistant principal is performing duties and responsibilities in at least a satisfactory manner and shall serve to automatically extend the principal's or assistant principal's contract for a period of one year after the contract would otherwise expire, under the same terms and conditions as the prior year's contract. The requirements in this Section are in addition to the right of a school board to reclassify a principal or assistant principal pursuant to Section 10-23.8b of this Code.

(f) Nothing in this Section prohibits a school board from ordering lateral transfers of principals or assistant principals to positions of similar rank and salary.

(Source: P.A. 102-729, eff. 5-6-22.)

(105 ILCS 5/24A-20)

Sec. 24A-20. State Board of Education data collection and evaluation assessment and support systems.

(a) The On or before the date established in subsection (b) of this Section, the State Board of Education shall, through a process involving collaboration with the Performance Evaluation Advisory Committee Council, develop or contract for the development of and implement all of the following data collection and evaluation assessment and support systems:

(1) A system to annually collect and publish data by district and school on teacher and administrator performance evaluation outcomes. The system must ensure that no teacher or administrator can be personally identified by publicly reported data.

(2) Both a teacher and principal model evaluation template. The model templates must incorporate the requirements of this Article and any other requirements established by the State Board by administrative rule, but allow customization by districts in a manner that does not conflict with such requirements.

(3) An evaluator pre-qualification program based on the model teacher evaluation template.

(4) An evaluator training program based on the model teacher evaluation template. The training program shall provide multiple training options that account for the prior training and experience of the evaluator.

(5) A superintendent training program based on the model principal evaluation template.

(6) One or more instruments to provide feedback to principals on the instructional environment within a school.

(7) A State Board-provided or approved technical assistance system that supports districts with the development and implementation of teacher and principal evaluation systems.

(8) Web-based systems and tools supporting implementation of the model templates and the evaluator pre-qualification and training programs.

(9) A process for measuring and reporting correlations between local principal and teacher evaluations and the (A) student growth in tested grades and subjects and (B) retention rates of teachers.

(10) (Blank). A process for assessing whether school district evaluation systems developed pursuant to this Act and that consider student growth as a significant factor in the rating of a teacher's and principal's performance are valid and reliable, contribute to the development of staff, and improve student achievement outcomes. By no later than September 1, 2014, a research-based study shall be issued assessing such systems for validity and reliability, contribution to the development of staff, and improvement of student performance and recommending, based on the results of this study, changes, if any, that need to be incorporated into teacher and principal evaluation systems that consider student growth as a significant factor in the rating performance for remaining school districts to be required to implement such systems.

(b) (Blank). If the State of Illinois receives a Race to the Top Grant, the data collection and support systems described in subsection (a) must be developed on or before September 30, 2011. If the State of Illinois does not receive a Race to the Top Grant, the data collection and support systems described in subsection (a) must be developed on or before September 30, 2012; provided, however, that the data collection and support systems set forth in items (3) and (4) of subsection (a) of this Section must be developed by September 30, 2011 regardless of whether the State of Illinois receives a Race to the Top Grant. By no later than September 1, 2011, if the State of Illinois receives a Race to the Top Grant, or September 1, 2012, if the State of Illinois does not receive a Race to the Top Grant, the State Board of Education must execute or contract for the execution of the assessment referenced in item (10) of subsection (a) of this Section to determine whether the school district evaluation systems developed pursuant to this Act have been valid and reliable, contributed to the development of staff, and improved student performance.

(c) Districts shall submit data and information to the State Board on teacher and principal performance evaluations and evaluation plans in accordance with procedures and requirements for submissions established by the State Board. Such data shall include, without limitation, (i) data on the performance rating given to all teachers in contractual continued service, (ii) data on district recommendations to renew or not renew teachers not in contractual continued service, and (iii) data on the performance rating given to all principals.

(d) If the State Board of Education does not timely fulfill any of the requirements set forth in Sections 24A-7 and 24A-20, and adequate and sustainable federal, State, or other funds are not provided to the State Board of Education and school districts to meet their responsibilities under this Article, the applicable implementation date shall be postponed by the number of calendar days equal to those needed by the State Board of Education to fulfill such requirements and for the adequate and sustainable funds to be provided to the State Board of Education and school districts. The determination as to whether the State Board of Education has fulfilled any or all requirements set forth in Sections 24A-7 and 24A-20 and whether adequate and sustainable funds have been provided to the State Board of Education and school districts shall be made by the State Board of Education in consultation with the P-20 Council.

(e) The State Board of Education shall annually report teacher evaluation data from each school in the State. The State Board's report shall include:

(1) data from the most recent performance evaluation ratings issued prior to the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 103rd General Assembly for all nontenured teachers and teachers in contractual continued service disaggregated broken down by the race and ethnicity of teachers; and

(2) data from the most recent performance evaluation ratings issued prior to the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 103rd General Assembly for all nontenured teachers and teachers in contractual continued service disaggregated broken down by the race, ethnicity, and eligibility status for free or reduced-price lunch of students in the school where the teachers work.

The report shall contain data in an aggregate format. The report with the aggregate data is not confidential pursuant to Section 24A-7.1 of this Code unless an individual teacher is personally identifiable in the report. With respect to the report, the underlying data and any personally identifying information of a teacher shall be confidential. The State Board shall provide the data in the report in a format that prevents identification of individual teachers.

(Source: P.A. 103-452, eff. 1-1-24.)

(105 ILCS 5/34-8) (from Ch. 122, par. 34-8)

Sec. 34-8. Powers and duties of general superintendent. The general superintendent of schools shall prescribe and control, subject to the approval of the board and to other provisions of this Article, the courses of study mandated by State law, textbooks, educational apparatus and equipment, discipline in and conduct of the schools, and shall perform such other duties as the board may by rule prescribe. The superintendent shall also notify the State Board of Education, the board and the chief administrative official, other than the alleged perpetrator himself, in the school where the alleged perpetrator serves, that any person who is employed in a school or otherwise comes into frequent contact with children in the school has been named as a perpetrator in an indicated report filed pursuant to the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, approved June 26, 1975, as amended.

The general superintendent may be granted the authority by the board to hire a specific number of employees to assist in meeting immediate responsibilities. Conditions of employment for such personnel shall not be subject to the provisions of Section 34-85.

The general superintendent may, pursuant to a delegation of authority by the board and Section 34-18, approve contracts and expenditures.

Pursuant to other provisions of this Article, sites shall be selected, schoolhouses located thereon and plans therefor approved, and textbooks and educational apparatus and equipment shall be adopted and purchased by the board only upon the recommendation of the general superintendent of schools or by a majority vote of the full membership of the board and, in the case of textbooks, subject to Article 28 of this Act. The board may furnish free textbooks to pupils and may publish its own textbooks and manufacture its own apparatus, equipment and supplies.

In addition, in January of each year, the general superintendent of schools shall report to the State Board of Education the number of high school students in the district who are enrolled in accredited courses (for which high school credit will be awarded upon successful completion of the courses) at any community college, together with the name and number of the course or courses which each such student is taking.

The general superintendent shall also have the authority to monitor the performance of attendance centers, to identify and place an attendance center on remediation and probation, and to recommend to the board that the attendance center be placed on intervention and be reconstituted, subject to the provisions of Sections 34-8.3 and 8.4.

The general superintendent, or his or her designee, shall conduct an annual evaluation of each principal in the district pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the Board and the Board approved principal evaluation form. The evaluation shall be based on factors, including the following: (i) student academic improvement, as defined by the school improvement plan; (ii) student absenteeism rates at the school; (iii) instructional leadership; (iv) effective implementation of programs, policies, or strategies to improve student academic achievement; (v) school management; and (vi) other factors, including, without limitation, the principal's communication skills and ability to create and maintain a student-centered learning environment, to develop opportunities for professional development, and to encourage parental involvement and community partnerships to achieve school improvement.

The Effective no later than September 1, 2012, the general superintendent or his or her designee shall develop a written principal evaluation plan. The evaluation plan must be in writing and shall supersede the evaluation requirements set forth in this Section. The evaluation plan must do at least all of the following:

(1) Provide for annual evaluation of all principals employed under a performance contract by the general superintendent or his or her designee, no later than July 1st of each year.

(2) Consider the principal's specific duties, responsibilities, management, and competence as a principal.

(3) Specify the principal's strengths and weaknesses, with supporting reasons.

(4) Align with research-based standards.

(5) Until July 1, 2025, use Use data and indicators on student growth as a significant factor in rating principal performance.

Beginning July 1, 2025, the evaluation plan may provide for the use of data and indicators on student growth as a factor in rating performance.

(Source: P.A. 95-496, eff. 8-28-07; 96-861, eff. 1-15-10.)

(105 ILCS 5/34-85c)

Sec. 34-85c. Alternative procedures for teacher evaluation, remediation, and removal for cause after remediation.

(a) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the board and the exclusive representative of the district's teachers are hereby authorized to enter into an agreement to establish alternative procedures for teacher evaluation, remediation, and removal for cause after remediation, including an alternative system for peer evaluation and recommendations; provided, however, that no later than September 1, 2012: (i) any alternative procedures must include provisions whereby student performance data is a significant factor in teacher evaluation and (ii) teachers are rated as "excellent", "proficient", "needs improvement" or "unsatisfactory". Pursuant exclusively to that agreement, teachers assigned to schools identified in that agreement shall be subject to an alternative performance evaluation plan and remediation procedures in lieu of the plan and procedures set forth in Article 24A of this Code and alternative removal for cause standards and procedures in lieu of the removal standards and procedures set forth in Section 34-85 of this Code. To the extent that the agreement provides a teacher with an opportunity for a hearing on removal for cause before an independent hearing officer in accordance with Section 34-85 or otherwise, the hearing officer shall be governed by the alternative performance evaluation plan, remediation procedures, and removal standards and procedures set forth in the agreement in making findings of fact and a recommendation.

(a-5) If the Governor has declared a disaster due to a public health emergency pursuant to Section 7 of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act that suspends in-person instruction, the timelines connected to the commencement and completion of any remediation plan are paused. Except where the parties mutually agree otherwise and such agreement is in writing, any remediation plan that had been in place for 45 or more days prior to the suspension of in-person instruction shall resume when in-person instruction resumes; any remediation plan that had been in place for fewer than 45 days prior to the suspension of in-person instruction shall discontinue and a new remediation period will begin when in-person instruction resumes.

(a-10) No later than September 1, 2022, the school district must establish a teacher evaluation plan that ensures that each teacher in contractual continued service whose performance is rated as either "excellent" or "proficient" is evaluated at least once in the course of the 3 school years after receipt of the rating and establish an informal teacher observation plan that ensures that each teacher in contractual continued service whose performance is rated as either "excellent" or "proficient" is informally observed at least once in the course of the 2 school years after receipt of the rating.

(a-15) (Blank). For the 2022-2023 school year only, if the Governor has declared a disaster due to a public health emergency pursuant to Section 7 of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, the school district may waive the evaluation requirement of any teacher in contractual continued service whose performance was rated as either "excellent" or "proficient" during the last school year in which the teacher was evaluated under this Section.

(b) The board and the exclusive representative of the district's teachers shall submit a certified copy of an agreement as provided under subsection (a) of this Section to the State Board of Education.

(Source: P.A. 101-643, eff. 6-18-20; 102-252, eff. 1-1-22; 102-729, eff. 5-6-22.)

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect July 1, 2025.