Leadership Matters - February 2013

Bargaining implications of performance evaluations

With new rules regarding the Illinois Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) and the Education Reform Act (Senate Bill 7), school districts are beginning to grapple with the collective bargaining implications of the new laws. Although the implementation dates for a student growth component are not until September 1, 2013, 2015, and 2016 for many districts, the bargaining proposals that will impact evaluation plans (and therefore reductions in force or RIF) are being implementation of the

Anderson This article was written by David Braun, an Associate in the Monticello -based law firm of Miller, Tracy, Braun, Funk and Miller, Ltd. He focuses his practice in the area of school law and has been a presenter at IASA workshops, academies and conferences. He served on the Education Law Council of the Illinois State Bar Association from 2008-2011.

rules for how teachers’ evaluations are categorized for purposes of reductions in forces. The law establishes specific topics for the RIF committee’s discussions. The RIF committee’s changes must be complete and agreed to by February 1 of any year in which a RIF is to be performed; otherwise the rules from the previous year (or the law if no prior agreement was reached) apply. The RIF committee is not required to meet annually unless otherwise required by agreement. Issues to watch during discussions:  The law establishes what the committee may (and may not) agree to. Only the RIF committee can discuss how to move employees from Grouping 2 to Grouping 3 (but not Grouping 4), and only the RIF committee can discuss alternate definitions for Grouping 4. Further, only the RIF committee can discuss (and agree to) how to deal with noncompliant (that is, something other than Excellent, Proficient, Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory) evaluation summative ratings.  Schools should not agree to changes to the reductions in force procedure beyond those defined by law, and should not agree to pre-determine evaluation outcomes (everyone is an Excellent, for instance). Limiting discussion to those permitted by law is advisable. PERA/Evaluation Joint Committee The PERA or Evaluation Joint Committee establishes the rules for implementation of the student growth portion of the evaluation. The evaluation committee determines rules for the implementation of the student growth component and for the usage of assessments. If the evaluation (Continued on page 21)

created today. Therefore, it is imperative that districts carefully examine their plans, their proposals, and their procedures long before the implementation dates arrive. Evaluation plans may now be impacted by as many as four separate committees:  The district’s pre-existing evaluation committee;  The PERA joint committee on evaluations;  The ERA joint committee on reductions in force; and  The bargaining committee. While nothing in the law requires any of these committees to have differing membership, each committee has its own jurisdiction. As such, decisions made by the “wrong” committee could jeopardize the district’s ability to enforce the rules the committee created. Three components are therefore critical in decision-making for any district engaging in bargaining these issues: 1) What committee is meeting? 2) What authority does that committee have? 3) What will happen when the committee reaches agreement? All of these issues should be addressed at the very first meeting of each committee, and each meeting should identify which committee is meeting, who was present, what the committee discussed, and to what the committee agreed. For those going to the bargaining table this year, now is the perfect time to discuss the answers to many of these questions. Education Reform Act/RIF Joint Committee The SB7 or RIF Joint Committee establishes

14