105 ILCS 5/24-16.5

(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 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.)