SCH CD-EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS
SB0028 amends multiple sections of the Illinois School Code governing teacher, principal, and assistant principal evaluations, remediation, dismissal, and related State Board of Education oversight. The bill makes substantial changes to the state’s performance evaluation framework, including revising how student growth is used in evaluations, updating evaluator and hearing-officer qualifications, and modifying procedures for remediation and dismissal after an unsatisfactory rating. It also creates or updates State Board advisory structures and data systems tied to evaluation implementation and reporting.
For teachers, the bill changes the optional alternative dismissal process in Section 24-16.5 and revises evaluation-plan requirements in Article 24A. It shifts the student-growth requirement so that, until July 1, 2025, districts must use student-growth data as a significant factor in teacher evaluations, while after that date districts may use student-growth data as a factor rather than a mandatory significant factor. The bill also adds or clarifies procedures for second evaluators, remediation timelines, hearing scope, board decision-making, judicial review, and retirement-year evaluation waivers. For principals and assistant principals, it similarly updates evaluation standards and moves student-growth language from a required significant factor to a permissive factor beginning July 1, 2025.
The bill also affects Chicago-specific and statewide administrative provisions. It revises Section 34-85c to allow the board and the teachers’ exclusive representative to negotiate alternative procedures for evaluation, remediation, and removal for cause in Chicago schools, while preserving the ability to use alternative peer-evaluation systems. It updates the State Board’s duties in Section 24A-20 to develop model templates, evaluator training and pre-qualification programs, technical assistance, and annual reporting systems, including aggregate reporting on evaluation outcomes and demographic breakdowns. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable in the recorded votes. It passed the Senate 53-0 and the House 92-21, indicating broad bipartisan support, though not unanimous support in the House. The absence of committee transcript snippets limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote margins suggest the bill was generally viewed as a technical but significant update to educator evaluation and dismissal law rather than a highly polarizing measure.
The main points of contention likely center on labor-management balance and the role of student growth in personnel decisions. The bill preserves district authority in dismissal and evaluation processes while also requiring cooperation with teacher representatives in several places, which may have drawn concern from both management and union interests over control of evaluator selection, peer review, and bargaining rights. Another likely point of debate is the bill’s move away from mandatory student-growth weighting after July 1, 2025, which changes a long-standing accountability requirement and could be viewed either as flexibility for districts or as a reduction in performance-based accountability.
SB0028 amends the School Code provisions governing educator evaluation and dismissal, including 105 ILCS 5/24-16.5, 24A-2.5, 24A-4, 24A-5, 24A-7, 24A-15, 24A-20, 34-8, and 34-85c. It changes the legal standards for teacher, principal, and assistant principal evaluations; modifies remediation and dismissal procedures; updates hearing and review rules; and directs the State Board of Education to maintain model templates, training programs, technical assistance, and annual reporting systems. It also affects collective bargaining and alternative procedures in Chicago schools under Article 34, and it establishes a July 1, 2025 effective date for the act’s changes.
The bill’s recorded votes show strong support overall, with unanimous approval in the Senate and a solid House majority despite 21 nays. That pattern suggests the measure was broadly acceptable to legislators as a modernization of educator evaluation law, even if some members had reservations. With no committee transcript available, the public record mainly indicates consensus around updating the evaluation framework rather than deep partisan conflict.
The likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s treatment of student growth, bargaining rights, and dismissal protections. Supporters may have favored clearer procedures, updated training, and more flexibility after 2025, while opponents may have objected to reducing the mandatory role of student-growth data or to provisions that limit challenges to evaluator-selection procedures and narrow hearing issues. Teacher representatives and labor advocates would likely focus on preserving bargaining influence and procedural fairness, while school districts and administrators would likely emphasize streamlined dismissal authority and clearer evaluation standards.