Statutory Groupings Who is where and what rights are attached.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Survey of Super LEAs Evaluation Systems Performance Evaluation Advisory Council July 16 th, 2010.
Advertisements

Updated Training for DPAS II for Administrators
Contract and Grant Provisions and Administration Section 105 (Page 30) Title I The Act.
Contract Faculty Evaluations. AGENDA Review of Information Packet Ground Rules Purpose of Evaluation Evaluation Procedures Evaluation Criteria Time Line.
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education Updated: July 2011.
And PERA. 1) School Climate Survey 2) School Board Member Training 3) Certification Action – Incompetency 4) Filling of vacant positions 5) Tenure 6)
Overview of Virginia Law: Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children Michelle Vucci May 25, 2010.
Article XXXVI – Signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession 1. – This Protocol shall be open for signature in Berlin on 9 March 2012 by.
New Mexico Public School Department Guidelines for Annual Teacher Performance Evaluation School Year PDP Revision Committee: Dr. Janaan Diemer,
Constitution & Bylaws Amendments for Chapter Ratification.
Gene Shawcroft, P.E. Central Utah Water Conservancy District April 29-30, 2013.
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PESONNEL ADMINISTRATORS EIGHTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE LEGAL HOT TOPICS January 29, 2015By: Daniel M. Boyle Hyatt Lisle Hauser.
August 15, 2012 Fontana Unified School District Superintendent, Cali Olsen-Binks Associate Superintendent, Oscar Dueñas Director, Human Resources, Mark.
Chapter 10: Recruitment, Tenure, Dismissal and Due Process EDAD 859
Elgin Teachers Association ©2013 Transfer and Reassignment As defined by The Elgin Agreement
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES TO EDUCATORS’ EVALUATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH Compiled by the MOU Evaluation Subcommittee September, 2011 The DESE oversees the educators’
Current Legal Issues in Risk Management February 16, 2011 Presented by: Phillip L. Hartley Harben, Hartley & Hawkins, LLP.
September 12, 2013 Prepared By Amanda Brown, Bylaws Chairman.
Slide 1 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Public Exchange Clarification Briefing June 2009.
Legislative Changes to the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (AB 340 and AB 197) Presented by: Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association.
Reduction in Force Differences between Classified Staff, Teaching Faculty and Administrative/Professional Faculty October, 2009.
REMEDIATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS: YOUR HOW TO GUIDE FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE Presented By: Cindi DeCola, Partner Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer,
1 Major Changes in Non-Senate Instruction Unit (Unit 18) MOU Department Chairs Forum October 23, 2003.
Module 1: PERA Illinois Administrative Code Part 50
Faculty Evaluation Policy Why: – Needed to comply with SACS accreditation guidelines – Must comply with UL System requirements – Needed to improve the.
Faculty Affairs presents:.  Conditions of Appointment  Lecturer Evaluation Process  Reappointment  Entitlements  Order of Assignment  Salary  New.
Accountability Assessment Parents & Community Preparing College, Career, & Culturally Ready Graduates Standards Support 1 for Districts & Schools for Educators.
Adapted from a presentation by Mark Lieu Academic Senate for California Community Colleges - Leadership Institute 2006 Academic Senate for California Community.
1 Effective Senates: The Key Ingredients of Collegial Consultation Angelica Bangle, Chris Hill, Wheeler North, Beverly Reilly, Cheryl Stewart.
Collective Bargaining Retreat for Management Discussion of the Impact of Measuring Teacher and Leader Effectiveness on Collective Bargaining August 17,
Bases for Academic Senates: What Are We And What Are Our Roles? Craig Rutan, Area D Representative Cynthia Rico, South Representative.
Duke Ellington “A problem is a chance for you to do your best.”
EMPOWERING LOCAL SENATES Kevin Bontenbal, South Representative Stephanie Dumont, Area D Representative.
ACT NO The Students First Act. Section Summary Section 1: names the bill (page 2) Section 2: defines the intent of the bill (page 2-3) Section.
Factoring Growth Models Into Administrator and Teacher Performance Evaluations -- a presentation for -- Henderson, Mercer, and Warren Counties Regional.
MARCH 9, 2006 Boating Safety and Enforcement Grant Program Regulations Stakeholder Workshop Proposed Conceptual Regulations Department of Boating and Waterways.
Minimum Qualifications, Equivalence and Faculty Service Areas Jon Drinnon, Michelle Grimes-Hillman, Wheeler North Standards and Practices Committee Leadership.
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges ­– Leadership Institute 2008 Basics for Effective Senates Shaaron Vogel Wheeler North Academic Senate.
Human Resources January 14, Grade Level Reconfiguration is a two Step Process Step 1 Grade Level Reconfiguration Transfers Step 2 Regular Staffing.
AFGE Local 1858 Presents. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROPOSED N.S.P.S. NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM.
Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers Virginia Department of Education Approved April 2011.
Local Leadership: Do You Know How to Hire Effectively? Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Leadership Institute.
STUDENT GROWTH & JOB RETENTION SB7 AND PERA. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Jennifer Kowaczek (Committee Leader) Cyndee Fralick (ETA Board Member) Graciela AlbaveraSandy.
New Hanover County Schools Board of Education Presentation November 19, 2013.
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education September 2010.
Excellent Public Schools Act of 2013 Instructional Collaboration Day II January 3, 2014.
“A Georgia Charter System” Floyd County Schools Reduction In Force Process The Superintendent’s FY14 Plan Dr. Jeff McDaniel, Superintendent.
1 Rose Hermodson Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education December 13, 2011 Teacher Evaluation Components in Legislation.
CHAPTER 10 The regulation of working time. The Working Time Regulations define limits on working time and provide for breaks and rest periods to ensure.
Presented by Mathew Hough Ansonia Federation President March 24, 2016.
Step Advancement Based on Satisfactory Performance Departmental Human Resources Group Meeting July 28, 2006.
Mason County Schools August 11, 2016
PAc-17 Sabbatical Leave of Absence
Presented By: Joseph J. Perkoski
Evaluation of Tenure-Accruing Faculty
Rockingham County Public Schools Teacher Evaluation Process
Obligations of Educational Agencies: Parents’ Bill of Rights
Alternative Education Programs
Teacher Instructional Hours and Assigned Time
Transfer and Reassignment: a focus on In-Building Reassignment
10+1 Governance and Union Issues: Similarities and Differences
Building Relations: Local Senates and Unions Roles and challenges
10+1 Governance and Union Issues: Similarities and Differences
Mason County Schools August 11, 2016
Fall 2018 Overview from Curriculum Regional Meeting (11/17)
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND APPRAISAL SYSTEM (PDAS) TEACHER ORIENTATION This orientation provides an overview of the elements of the PDAS system and.
FLORIDA EDUCATIONAL NEGOTIATORS
Survey of Super LEAs Evaluation Systems
Faculty Evaluation Policy
Florida Courts Scavenger Hunt
Presentation transcript:

Statutory Groupings Who is where and what rights are attached

ETA/U46 Teacher Appraisal Plan (TAP) During the Summative Conference both a TAP rating and an ISBE rating are determined. Key background information

ETA/U46 Teacher Appraisal Plan (TAP) The professional practice component of the TAP is based upon the work of Charlotte Danielson. The four summative TAP ratings available are: ●Unsatisfactory ●Basic ●Proficient ●Distinguished Key background information

ETA/U46 Teacher Appraisal Plan (TAP) During the summative conference both a TAP rating and an ISBE rating are determined. The available ISBE ratings, by Illinois School Code, are: Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Proficient Excellent Key background information

It’s important to note that the correspondence between the TAP and ISBE ratings are not one to one and is modeled and explained through the “TAP Wheel”. That explanation can be found on the Transfer Reassignment Tools page of the ETA website.page Relationship between TAP and ISBE Key background information

Statutory Groupings Group IGroup IIGroup IVGroup III ➔ There are very specific factors that determine the member’s grouping. ➔ Each group has a specific set of rights as they pertain to recall. School code requires that teachers are grouped annually based upon their summative rating(s).

Who is in Group 1? Grouping 1 shall consist of each teacher who is not in contractual continued service and who 1)has not received a performance evaluation rating, 2)is employed for one school term or less to replace a teacher on leave, or 3)is employed on a part-time basis. Group I Group II Group III Group IV ISBE Summative Rating in System None

Who is in Group 2? Grouping 2 shall consist of each teacher with a Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory performance evaluation rating on either of the teacher's last 2 performance evaluation ratings. Group I Group II Group III Group IV U Any NI Any or None NIU Any ISBE Summative Rating in System

Who is in Group 3? Grouping 3 shall consist of each teacher with a performance evaluation rating of at least Satisfactory or Proficient on both of the teacher's last 2 performance evaluation ratings, if 2 ratings are available, or on the teacher's last performance evaluation rating, if only one rating is available, unless the teacher qualifies for placement into grouping 4. Group I Group II Group III Group IV P EPE PE ISBE Summative Rating in System EE EEU NI

Who is in Group 4? Grouping 4 shall consist of each teacher whose last 2 performance evaluation ratings are Excellent and each teacher with 2 Excellent performance evaluation ratings out of the teacher's last 3 performance evaluation ratings with a third rating of Satisfactory or Proficient. Group I Group II Group III Group IV PEEEE E E ISBE Summative Rating in System E EEP PEE

Reduction in force - dismissal order Among teachers qualified to hold a position, teachers must be dismissed in the order of their groupings, with teachers in grouping one dismissed first and teachers in grouping 4 dismissed last. Group I Group II Group III Group IV RIF Order of DismissalStatutory Grouping Listing Order

Within grouping sorting rules Within grouping one, the sequence of dismissal must be at the discretion of the school district or joint agreement. Group I Group II Group III Group IV

Within grouping 2, the sequence of dismissal must be based upon average performance evaluation ratings, with the teacher or teachers with the lowest average performance evaluation rating dismissed first. A teacher's average performance evaluation rating must be calculated using the average of the teacher's last 2 performance evaluation ratings, if 2 ratings are available, or the teacher's last performance evaluation rating, if only one rating is available, using the following numerical values: 4 for Excellent; 3 for Proficient or Satisfactory; 2 for Needs Improvement; and 1 for Unsatisfactory. Group I Group II Group III Group IV Within grouping sorting rules

As between or among teachers in grouping 2 with the same average performance evaluation rating and within each of groupings 3 and 4, the teacher or teachers with the shorter length of continuing service with the school district. Group I Group II Group III Group IV Within grouping sorting rules

As between or among teachers in grouping 2 with the same average performance evaluation rating and within each of groupings 3 and 4, the teacher or teachers with the shorter length of continuing service with the school district. Group I Group II Group III Group IV Within grouping sorting rules

Technical details within For purposes of this subsection (b), subject to agreement on an alternative definition reached by the joint committee described in subsection (c) of this Section, a teacher's performance evaluation rating means the overall performance evaluation rating resulting from an annual or biennial performance evaluation conducted pursuant to Article 24A of this Code by the school district or joint agreement determining the sequence of dismissal, not including any performance evaluation conducted during or at the end of a remediation period. For performance evaluation ratings determined prior to September 1, 2012, any school district or joint agreement with a performance evaluation rating system that does not use either of the rating category systems specified in subsection (d) of Section 24A-5 of this Code for all teachers must establish a basis for assigning each teacher a rating that complies with subsection (d) of Section 24A-5 of this Code for all of the performance evaluation ratings that are to be used to determine the sequence of dismissal. A teacher's grouping and ranking on a sequence of honorable dismissal shall be deemed a part of the teacher's performance evaluation, and that information may be disclosed to the exclusive bargaining representative as part of a sequence of honorable dismissal list, notwithstanding any laws prohibiting disclosure of such information. A performance evaluation rating may be used to determine the sequence of dismissal, notwithstanding the pendency of any grievance resolution or arbitration procedures relating to the performance evaluation. If a teacher has received at least one performance evaluation rating conducted by the school district or joint agreement determining the sequence of dismissal and a subsequent performance evaluation is not conducted in any school year in which such evaluation is required to be conducted under Section 24A-5 of this Code, the teacher's performance evaluation rating for that school year for purposes of determining the sequence of dismissal is deemed Proficient. If a performance evaluation rating is nullified as the result of an arbitration, administrative agency, or court determination, then the school district or joint agreement is deemed to have conducted a performance evaluation for that school year, but the performance evaluation rating may not be used in determining the sequence of dismissal. From the Illinois School Code (105 ILCS 5/24-12) While a Proficient of Excellent rating is required to successfully complete a Remediation plan, that rating is precluded from consideration in the generation of the the Grouping. Even if a member has an ongoing appeal of a summative rating, informally or through any available grievance process, the district may use the rating in the creation of the Grouping list. This is the language that creates the “default Proficient” rating for members.

Recall Rights If the board or joint agreement has any vacancies for the following school term or within one calendar year from the beginning of the following school term, the positions thereby becoming available must be tendered to the teachers so removed or dismissed who were in groupings 3 or 4 of the sequence of dismissal and are qualified to hold the positions, based upon legal qualifications and any other qualifications established in a district or joint agreement job description, on or before the May 10 prior to the date of the positions becoming available, provided that if the number of honorable dismissal notices based on economic necessity exceeds 15% of the number of full-time equivalent positions filled by certified employees (excluding principals and administrative personnel) during the preceding school year, then the recall period is for the following school term or within 2 calendar years from the beginning of the following school term. Among teachers eligible for recall pursuant to the preceding sentence, the order of recall must be in inverse order of dismissal, unless an alternative order of recall is established in a collective bargaining agreement or contract between the board and a professional faculty members' organization. All members in grouping 3 or 4 who were subject to RIF have recall rights. The Elgin Agreement does not provide for an alternative order of recall, therefore the list will not be updated prior to recall.

Grouping - quick overview GroupingWho can be in this group?Sort within the groupRecall Rights if RIFd IVAll members with at least 2 summative ratingsSeniority Yes - All and in reverse order of dismissal III Available to any with at least 2 summative ratings; also represents the highest placement possible for those with only 1 summative rating Seniority Yes - All and in reverse order of dismissal II Predominantly tenured teachers since most, if not all, pre-tenured who qualify are non-renewed Average of prior 2; seniority Limited - Only for those with a single summative rating, with a rating of Needs Improvement (NI); for those with two summative ratings to consider, only one rating of NI with the other being Proficient or Excellent. I Open only to 1st year teachers without any summative rating District determinedNone; but eligible for rehire

Honorable Dismissal - recommend to non-renew Nothing in this subsection (b) shall be construed as limiting the right of a school board or governing board of a joint agreement to dismiss a teacher not in contractual continued service in accordance with Section of this Code. ➔ This means that pre-tenured teachers in good standing (Proficient or Excellent summative ratings) can be non-renewed (dismissed) without recall rights ➔ It should be noted that these individuals do NOT have recall rights but they may be rehired - this also applies to members in Group 1 that receive a RIF notice