SCH CD-TEACHER EVALUATION-AI
SB2909 amends the Illinois School Code section governing teacher evaluation plans. The bill keeps the existing framework requiring districts to evaluate teachers on a regular schedule, including annual evaluations for non-tenured teachers and periodic evaluations for tenured teachers, along with observation, performance ratings, written feedback, and remediation or dismissal procedures for teachers rated “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory.” It also preserves special rules for principals in their first year, retirement-year evaluation waivers, and emergency adjustments when in-person instruction is suspended due to a public health disaster.
The main new policy change is a set of restrictions and disclosure requirements for artificial intelligence in the teacher evaluation process. Evaluators are prohibited from using AI tools to assign numerical scores or qualitative ratings, or to perform other tasks requiring professional judgment, though AI may be used for administrative support. Teachers are also barred from using AI to generate evidence of professional practice for evaluation purposes, though they may use AI for administrative tasks. If AI is used by either side, the tool’s name and purpose must be disclosed, and the joint committee under the School Code is directed to determine how AI tools may be used in this context. The bill also clarifies that failure to strictly meet certain timing requirements does not invalidate remediation results.
In practical terms, the bill affects school districts, principals, teachers, evaluators, and collective bargaining relationships across Illinois. It updates evaluation-plan requirements under 105 ILCS 5/24A-5 and interacts with related dismissal and remediation provisions in the School Code. Districts will need to revise evaluation policies and procedures to comply with the AI restrictions, disclosure rules, and any guidance adopted by the State Board of Education or the joint committee.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is cautious and regulatory rather than oppositional or expansive: it seeks to preserve human professional judgment in teacher evaluation while allowing limited AI use for administrative support. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s structure suggests an attempt to modernize evaluation rules without changing the underlying accountability system for teachers.
The most likely points of contention are the limits on AI use, the disclosure obligations, and how much discretion districts and evaluators retain in implementing AI-related tools. Teacher advocates may view the bill as protecting educators from automated scoring and opaque decision-making, while districts or administrators may be concerned about administrative burden, compliance costs, or reduced flexibility. Another possible issue is how the joint committee and State Board of Education will define permissible AI uses in practice.
The bill amends Section 24A-5 of the Illinois School Code (105 ILCS 5/24A-5), which governs teacher evaluation plans, by adding explicit artificial intelligence restrictions, disclosure requirements, and committee oversight for AI use in evaluations. It preserves existing evaluation, remediation, and dismissal rules while requiring districts to ensure AI is not used for professional-judgment tasks such as scoring or rating teachers, and it requires disclosure when AI tools are used by evaluators or teachers. School districts, evaluators, teachers, and bargaining units will need to align local evaluation plans with these new statutory requirements.
The bill appears generally supportive of teacher protections and cautious about technology use in personnel decisions. Its approach favors human judgment in evaluations while permitting AI only for limited administrative support, suggesting a balanced but restrictive stance. No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no documented public controversy in the supplied materials.
The main contention is likely to be over the role of artificial intelligence in teacher evaluations: whether AI should be limited to administrative support, how disclosure should work, and how much discretion evaluators and districts should retain. Teachers and unions may support the bill’s prohibition on AI-based scoring and evidence generation, while school districts or administrators may object to added compliance requirements or argue for broader AI flexibility. The bill also leaves important implementation details to the joint committee and State Board of Education, which could become a source of disagreement.