SCH CD-TEACHER EVALUATION PLAN
SB1677 amends Section 24A-5 of the Illinois School Code, which governs teacher evaluation plans for school districts. The bill adds an explicit prohibition requiring evaluation plans to bar evaluators from using artificial intelligence tools to carry out teacher evaluation tasks. The text specifies that this includes, but is not limited to, transcription, summarization, analysis of video, audio, text, or numerical data, and assigning ratings.
The measure does not change the broader structure of Illinois teacher evaluation law, which still requires districts to evaluate teachers on set schedules, consider classroom observation and other performance factors, and provide remediation procedures for teachers rated poorly. Instead, it narrows how evaluations may be conducted by ensuring that the human evaluator, rather than AI, performs the core evaluation functions. It applies to school districts covered by Article 24A of the School Code and affects principals, evaluators, teachers in contractual continued service, and other certified employees subject to evaluation plans.
The bill would amend 105 ILCS 5/24A-5 in the School Code by adding a new restriction to teacher evaluation plans: evaluators may not use artificial intelligence tools to perform evaluation tasks. This would require school districts to update local evaluation policies and practices to ensure compliance, particularly where districts may have begun using AI-assisted note-taking, summarization, analytics, or rating tools in personnel evaluations. The bill leaves intact existing statutory requirements for observations, ratings, remediation, dismissal procedures, and evaluation timing.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct legislative record of support or opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a precautionary approach to preserving human judgment in teacher evaluations and limiting the role of automated decision-making in employment-related assessments. The overall tone of the proposal is regulatory and protective rather than controversial on its face.
The main point of potential contention is the use of artificial intelligence in educator evaluation processes. Supporters are likely to favor the bill as a safeguard against overreliance on automated tools, concerns about accuracy, transparency, bias, and the need for professional judgment in personnel decisions. Opponents or affected districts may argue that the restriction limits administrative efficiency, prevents useful technology from assisting evaluators, or creates compliance burdens if districts have adopted AI-supported workflows. The bill does not otherwise alter teacher rights, remediation standards, or dismissal rules, so the AI prohibition is the central issue.