Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

School reform teed up for Senate passage

Posted in:

Illinois

* School reform will likely pass the Senate soon, but without any of the hostile craziness which has accompanied similar labor issues in other states. As subscribers knew yesterday morning, an agreement was reached late Tuesday night after months of negotiations, which were chaired by Sen. Kimberly Lighford…

Lightford said they reached two separate sets of regulations regarding school strikes, one for Chicago and another for the suburbs and Downstate. Both would require several steps, including airing out their sides before an arbitrator, before moving forward with a strike, she said.

One key change for Chicago is a requirement that 75 percent of Chicago Teachers Union would have to vote to go on strike, a higher standard necessary because Chicago has so many more children and teachers impacted by a strike, Lightford said. […]

A second major change would loosen the seniority standard that determines who gets laid off and make it easier to dump a teacher based on performance, Lightford said. The move would address the notion that it is tough to dismiss poor-performing teachers because of their seniority, she said. […]

Under the proposal school districts also would be able to set a length of school day or lengthen the school year without having to negotiate those time periods, she said. Unions still would be able to negotiate for more pay or benefits if more time in the classroom is added, she said.

* The legislation can be read by clicking here. The unions met with House Speaker Michael Madigan yesterday to urge him to sign on to the agreement. Madigan made no commitments, but it’s believed most of it will survive…

Through the months, key House members were kept updated on the talks. Rep. Marlow Colvin, a Chicago Democrat on the House Elementary and Secondary Committee, said it was “too early to tell” how the legislation would be accepted in the House.

“But the appetite to get something done on education reform is clear,” Colvin said. “The House hasn’t had a really good look at it, and given the divergent opinions of the larger (House) chamber that’s twice the size (of the Senate), it’s hard to say.”

* The political angle…

The proposal wraps up months of negotiations between self-proclaimed education reformers, such as Stand for Children and Advance Illinois, and interest groups such as the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the Illinois Education Association, the Chicago Teachers Union, groups representing school administrators and boards and lawmakers. The talks have been led by state Sen. Kimberly Lightford, D-Chicago.

Stand for Children became a key player in state legislative races last year when it dumped more than $600,000 into candidates’ campaign funds. Much of that money went to Democrats.

Robin Steans, executive director of Advance Illinois, acknowledged the role Stand for Children’s bank account played in the effort. However, she also cited the federal Race to the Top program, in which states competed for federal money based on their willingness to reform their education laws.

“You bring in a new player with some dollars to put behind education reform, so you have a lot of good and strong conditions and they remain in place,” she said.

* From a Stand for Children press release…

Reforming tenure

* Ensuring tenure decisions will be based on performance evaluations by requiring teachers to earn two proficient or excellent ratings in years two through four of the probationary period, with a proficient or excellent rating in the fourth year. No longer will teachers automatically receive tenure after four years in the classroom regardless of performance.
* Providing fair and efficient dismissals of tenured teachers by streamlining the dismissal process of tenured teachers in situations related to conduct and performance dismissal decisions.

Making performance count, rather than seniority

* Allowing districts across the state to make layoff decisions based on performance before seniority. Allows districts to match teachers’ qualifications to the positions they will hold and ensures that teachers with poor performance evaluations are laid-off prior to more effective teachers.
* Currently seniority is used as the primary criterion for filling new and vacant positions across the state (with the exception of Chicago Public Schools, which already fills positions based on merit and ability). Under SB 7 school districts will now be allowed to fill positions based on certifications, qualifications, performance, merit, ability and relevant experience with seniority only used as a tie-breaker.
* If a teacher receives two unsatisfactory ratings within a seven-year period, the State Superintendent will have the authority to revoke a certificate or require professional development.

Improving Learning Conditions

* A survey of learning conditions will be administered to teachers and students every two years beginning in 2012-2013.
* School board members will be required to complete four hours of training.

* The Tribune praised much of the deal, but got hung up on the strike provision…

One great, big vulnerability in this package: It still allows teachers to walk out of their classrooms and head to the picket line. Teaches perform an essential public service, and when they’re on strike, their students suffer. Emanuel wanted to prohibit strikes by teachers, but he didn’t get it. And that’s a red flag as he moves to bring in aggressive new leadership and address a financial crisis at Chicago Public Schools.

The proposed law does set a higher bar for a job action. Authorization for a strike in Chicago would require approval from 75 percent of active union members, rather than a majority. The legislature should set an even higher bar for job actions by professional educators.

Not mentioned by the Tribune is that the strike clause also requires tons of mediation and public disclosures before a strike could be voted on. And three-quarters of all union members would have to vote to strike, not just three-fourths of those voting. That’s a pretty darned high standard.

* Related…

* Sweeping changes proposed to how IL teachers are hired, fired - Seniority is out, teacher performance is in.

* Sweeping school reform bill targets school day, strikes, bad teachers

* A look at the school reform bill

* Bills on Chicago school vouchers, facilities head for key votes

* Stacking the Odds in Favor of Charter Schools - Charters unload problem students onto neighboring public schools - then reap the benefits.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 9:19 am

Comments

Senator Lightford deserves a lot of credit for pulling this together. This was an old-school, everyone come to the table and work out a solution that we don’t see enough of anymore. This probably won’t make national news because it was effective and produced a quality product, but it should, because this is how you get things done. Take note Wisconsin.

Congrats!

Comment by Ahoy Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 9:52 am
===Take note Wisconsin.===

Absolutely.

This is how things used to be done at the Statehouse, back in the days when Illinois “worked.” Hopefully, those days are returning. This is a very good sign.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 9:56 am
So, how is “performance” to be assessed? Do the teachers receive performance assessments from the principals? Or is it based on student test scores? If it’s based on student test scores on standardized tests, how do you assess teachers in areas that aren’t covered by standardized tests (social studies, PE, etc)? Or, how do you assess teachers who teach classes for a year where the kids don’t take a standardized test?

If it’s based on performance assessments by principals, then what standard are the principals to use? Principals aren’t in the classroom, they’re administrators, they don’t actually oversee the activities in each classroom. Plus, it creates an opportunity for principals to abuse the system, especially if a new principal comes in to a school and has a conflict with established teachers. A couple of bad performance reviews and the teacher can be fired. Or, the teacher sees the writing on the wall and quits and looks for a new job.

Or, if its based on test scores, you create an even greater incentive for teachers to act unethically and change answers on standardized test forms in order to “improve” their performance.

Perhaps teachers should be assessed based on performance, and there’s a case for simplifying the procedures to remove bad teachers, but “reforms” like this may create a whole new problem. Perhaps a bigger problem.

The strike provision is also really problematic. How does the “higher standard” for Chicago Teachers pass muster? For every union outside of Chicago, it takes a simple majority to strike, but for Chicago it takes 75%? Seems like a case could be made that such a standard violates equal protection requirements. Why a higher standard for one group than another? Does this mean that the educational opportunities for Chicago students is more important than providing educational opportunities for students in Elmhurst? or in Rockford? or in Belleville?

Do teachers in downstate and suburban districts have more rights because they choose to work in those districts than teachers in Chicago? The courts have been pretty fond of striking down new laws lately.

A better solution would be refocusing our efforts to improve educational facilities, and offer higher salaries for teachers - salaries which are more competitive with the private sector to entice more people to go into education. If you can get a degree in engineering and earn a six figure salary, why would you want to take a significantly lower pay rate to deal with the stress and difficulty of teaching math or physics or chemistry to a bunch of kids, especially in some of the worst schools in the state?

I know the State is broke, so increasing funding for school districts isn’t exactly on the table, but actual improvements in education can be made by improving the facilities and by enticing higher quality people to enter the profession.

Comment by jerry 101 Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 10:15 am
What is missing in the legislation is…………administration. Teachers never automatically get tenured, it is up to administration to give it. Time and time again I have seen administrators miss a teacher evaluation, or a meeting on the evaluation and they give certain teachers tenure who we all knew in year 1 was not going to make it and do a good job, but the administrator has no clue.

Why do we keep bashing teachers when administrators are not doing their job?

Also, what makes a satisfactory teacher and what makes an excellent teacher? Right now it is based on feelings, no specifics. How can you operate in an environment when you don’t know what to do to become excellent, and if those standards are based on a certain administrator and it changes administrator to administrator?

So the bill is a good step, but there are issues still not addressed.

Comment by Union Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 10:16 am
Pretty impressive stuff. Everybody gave up something important, no one got everything they wanted. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 10:23 am
Congrats to everyone involved in this, especially Sen. Lightford. And to everyone constantly bashing the governor on his ability to govern, take note. This is meaningful, historic reform that didn’t require pitting citizens against one another and unilaterally stripping workers of their rights.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 10:27 am
My wife was an elementary teacher for 35 years. Her principal would come into her class room for one hour during the school year and write her evaluation based on that one hour of observation. Granted, the principal also interacts with the teachers throughout the year but spends very little time actually watching what the teacher does in the classroom. Not a very good way to do it. And if you had a principal you didn’t get along with…just sayin.

Comment by Springfield Skeptic Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 10:28 am
Springfield Skeptic,

Good principals do more than one evaluation visit. Test scores, as done right now, aren’t particularly useful because there is no baseline taken first to determine how much the student progressed during the year. A teacher who gets a batch of students who enter scoring a couple years behind shouldn’t get penalized because they didn’t score well.

A good principal knows everything going on in her school and is not a once a year stranger to her teachers’ classrooms.

Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 11:43 am
The IEA obviously yield enormous clout, as this proposed bill makes it easier for teachers in the suburbs and downstate to strike. How does that benefit the kids? Teachers win, kids lose.

Comment by Mark Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 11:57 am
By easier I mean the bill makes it easier for suburban Chicago and downstate teachers to strike, as compared to Chicago teachers. Chicago teachers require 75% vote to strike, suburbs and downstate require 50%.

Comment by Mark Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 12:05 pm
Meaningful school reform comes when we actually focus on preparing our future work force, not filling college campuses. According the Department of Labor and Bureau of Labor statistics, our employers tell us 22% of our work force will need a bachelors degree in the next decade. Our educational system is set up to serve those 22%. And both sides of the political aisle are buying in to the test score drivel. All of this conversation is drivel until we are intellectually honest with our students (future work force) and gear our system towards preparing them for the world of work. Thankfully, there is a movement afoot to put more meaningful, skills performance based assessments in place. It can’t come soon enough.

Comment by Just the Facts Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 12:09 pm
“Stacking the Odds in Favor of Charter Schools”

Rich -

Thank you for posting the link to this article. It is a realistic look at what is going on in what many people hold up to be the solution.

Comment by Just the Facts Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 12:10 pm
On its face it sounds like a good compromise between all of the interested parties.

The State could use a similiar provision for filling jobs at the State by using more then pure senority or demonstrably superior….imagine considering qualifications and experience over time in title…

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 1:13 pm
Cermak
Granted, some of the principals she had over the years were move involved than others. But the one observation per year was not the exception, it was the norm. The exception was the principal that came in multiple times during the school year. It is a bad system of evaluation.

Comment by Springfield Skeptic Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 2:37 pm
Mark-any perusal of school contract negotiations over the past quarter-century (since the passage of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act) would reveal that hundreds of school contracts are negotiated every year; a bare handful ever get to a strike situation. I think worries about teacher strikes are way overblown. Teachers do not want to strike- ever-but in rare situations it is the only option, and it is an option worth preserving.

Comment by Democrat Grrrrl Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 4:20 pm
As “reform” goes, this is barely a down payment on the things that really need to be done.

1. Allowing ANY teachers to strike is an affront to every taxpayer deluded into thinking their tax dollars are buying an “educated populace.”

2. So $600,000 buys you a cup of thin gruel, and the so-called illuminati on Cap Fax call it a home run hearkening back to the good old days when “Illinois worked.” LOL!

This was the same system that drove Illinois into the ditch, and the new player at the table just found out how little $600K in contributions buys you.

3. Take Note Wisconsin!? You’re kidding, right?

One state passes robust changes in public policy, and the other dots some i-s and crosses some t-s and congratulates themselves as if they just passed the Magna Carta.

Sheeesh!

Look, I know I’m at the far end of the spectrum for the Center left left cadre of folks commenting here, but seriously, you all do have to see the absurdity of the self congratulations, don’t you?

Nothing of import passed here. More papers where shuffled, more legislation got watered down, the system eats another ankle-biting nuisance, and

…drumroll please….

the children, once again, are an afterthought.

Please sir, may I have some more gruel?

Comment by Bruno Behrend Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 4:33 pm
Bruno, how’s the gruel?

Tell us more how life in 21st Century River Forest is comparable to Dicken’s 19th Century workhouse London.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 4:52 pm
Word,

Sad that questioning union/district dogma leads to absurd comparisons to Dickens.

Speaking of the 19th century…

That reminds me of the 19th Century, district-based, brick and mortar school system you seem to be defending.

Why, if we only dump another $10 billion into the tax-eating jobs machine, and mix it in with anti-bulling mandates and “Race to the No Top Child Left Behind” plan.. well… THEN, FINALLY, the system will work.

Comment by Bruno Behrend Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 5:10 pm
–Sad that questioning union/district dogma leads to absurd comparisons to Dickens.–

Bruno, sadly, I must have been mistaken.

When you employed the phrase, “Please sir, may I have some more gruel?,” in your argument, I was quite certain you were referencing “Oliver Twist.”

Perhaps you were talking about the chili at Louie’s Place next to Doc Ryan’s on Madison. Try crackers and Tabasco.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 14, 11 @ 5:29 pm