Current through Register Vol. 48, No. 38, September 20, 2024
a) In
accordance with Section 24-16.5(d)(2)(A) of the School Code, the scope of the
hearing held for an optional alternative evaluative dismissal process shall be
limited to the school district's demonstration of each of the components listed
in this subsection (a).
1) The performance
evaluation rating of "unsatisfactory" that preceded remediation applied the
teacher practice components and student growth components and determined an
overall evaluation rating of "unsatisfactory" in accordance with the standards
and requirements of the school district's evaluation plan;
2) The remediation plan for the affected
tenured teacher complied with the requirements of Section 24A-5 of the School
Code;
3) The teacher failed to
complete the remediation plan with a performance evaluation rating equal to or
better than a "proficient" rating, based upon a final remediation evaluation
that met the standards and requirements of the school district's evaluation
plan, as applicable; and
4) If the
second evaluator selected pursuant to Section
51.220
of this Part conducts an independent assessment that results in a performance
evaluation rating for the affected tenured teacher of "proficient" or
"excellent", then the school district must demonstrate that the final
remediation evaluation is a more valid assessment of the teacher's performance
than the assessment made by the second evaluator. (Section 24-16.5(d)(2)(A) of
the School Code)
b)
Limitations of Action by the Tenured Teacher Subject to Dismissal
A tenured teacher subject to dismissal under an optional
alternative evaluative dismissal process shall challenge only the substantive
and procedural aspects of the process as set forth in this subsection (b). (See
Section 24-16.5(d)(2)(B) of the School Code.)
1) The affected tenured teacher may challenge
the performance evaluation rating of "unsatisfactory" that led to the
remediation, the remediation plan developed pursuant to Section 24A-5 of the
School Code, and the final evaluation conducted at the conclusion of the
remediation period.
2) To the
extent the teacher challenges procedural aspects, including any in applicable
collective bargaining agreement provisions, of a relevant performance
evaluation rating or the remediation plan, the teacher must demonstrate how an
alleged procedural defect materially affected the teacher's ability to
demonstrate a level of performance necessary to avoid remediation or dismissal
or successfully complete the remediation plan. Without any such material
effect, a procedural defect shall not impact the assessment by the hearing
officer, Board, or reviewing court of the validity of a performance evaluation
or a remediation plan. (Section 24-16.5(d)(2)(B) of the School Code)
c) The hearing officer shall only
consider and give weight to performance evaluations relevant to the scope of
the hearing as described in this Section (Section 24-16.5(d)(2)(C) of the
School Code).
d) In accordance with
Section 24-16.5(d)(3) of the School Code, each party shall have two business
days, as defined in Section
51.60(c)(11)
of this Part, to present evidence and testimony unless:
1) a longer period is mutually agreed to by
the parties; or
2) the hearing
officer deems the extension to be necessary to enable a party to present
adequate evidence and testimony.
