Graphic: Chicago Reader.
There I stood at the mic at the IEA Representative Assembly, trying to get recognized by Ken Swanson who was president of the Illinois Education Association in 2010.
IEA Executive Director Audrey Soglin was making her report on the new state teacher evaluation law, a law written by the committee she headed. Appointed to head the committee by Governor Quinn, she and the committee were tasked with crafting the state’s Race to the Top grant proposal. Education Secretary Duncan insisted that every proposal had to have a component that linked teacher evaluation to individual student performance.
The committee crafted a bill. The Illinois General Assembly passed it. Illinois never got the grant. But we did get Audrey’s Law.
Half way through Soglin’s report I went to the mic. I was the first one up. I pulled a point of information yellow card and waited. And waited. Delegates were recognized all around me. But Ken would pointedly not point to me.
Finally, a dozen delegates from my Region came up behind me and started to wave. Ken must have been embarrassed at this precursor of the Occupation Movement. I was recognized at last.
“How will this impact those of us who have negotiated language in our local contracts that creates meaningful evaluation procedures that now must be tossed out?”
“It will be a challenge,” responded Audrey. And that was that. She was done with me.
Last Friday, the final process began. The Illinois State Board created the process for new teacher evaluations. By 2016 every district in Illinois must be in compliance.
There is now little doubt that Audrey’s Law, now known as the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) was the first step in enacting the corporate education agenda. Jonah Edelman refers to Audrey’s pragmatism in his infamous Aspen talk. Edelman’s Senate Bill 7, enthusiastically supported by the IEA, was soon to follow, which strips teachers of tenure and seniority rights, and restricts the right of Chicago teachers to strike.
If local districts cannot agree when bargaining on an evaluation process that includes a component in which 30% of the evaluation is based on student test scores, then it will default to a process created by the state board that has 50% of the evaluation based on scores.
The process will include public reporting of evaluations.
Thanks Audrey.
Yes. It will be a challenge.
Here’s a question: What metric shall we use to evaluate Audrey’s job performance? And will that be reported to the press?
Fred Klonsky 
Fred,
Where in the law did you see that 30% of an evaluation has to be based on student scores? I thought it couldn’t be more than 50% but never saw a bottom figure like 30%. Still trying to figure this all out.
In today’s issue of Jim Broadways authoritative Illinois School Policy Update: “Another factor is that it will not be a uniform assessment system. Each district is to create an evaluation scheme of its own, giving “student growth” 30% of the weight of any educator’s rating. The alternative will be to use a “default” system created by the State Board – weighting student growth at 50%.”
Boy, with friends like Audrey, who needs enemies?