It all goes back to PERA.
The Performance Evaluation Reform Act, passed by the Illinois General Assembly two years ago.
One of the requirements of PERA was that the CPS and the CTU were given a very narrow window to bargain a new evaluation plan with a teacher-value-added component. If both the CPS board and the CTU could not agree within that narrow time slot, the board could impose its “last best offer.”
The CTU is asking, “What’s the rush?”
There is plenty of evidence that VAM (value-added-measurement) is a flawed system. It’s ranking provision means that some teachers will always be at the bottom, no matter their skills or the progress that their student’s make.
Another provision of the CPS evaluation process is the reliance on the Charlotte Danielson Framework for principle observations. This rubric calls for evaluation training. 18 Danielson trainers will be hired by the board at salaries of up to $111,000 a year. With the board claiming a $700 million budget deficit, where will the almost $2 million come from. Who knows?
What the CTU leaders won’t say, because they are being tactful, is that the author of PERA is the IEA’s own Executive Director, Audrey Soglin.
Soglin was appointed by Governor Quinn to head the committee to write the state’s Race to the Top proposal. She included a bill that was essentially required by Arne Duncan and the US Department of Education. PERA was the result. It included the rushed time-line and the “last best offer” provision, giving the school board ultimate decision-making power for what should have been a bargaining process. This was an odd provision coming from the Executive Director of the state’s largest teacher union.
Chicago teachers owe Audrey a debt of gratitude. Or something.
Fred Klonsky 
Fred, my district started a new evaluation plan based on Danielson this year already. While the value-added portion isn’t included yet, the new process itself is extremely cumbersome. The teacher needs to keep detailed records of just about everything he or she does in order to “prove” he or she is doing his or her job. However, what people will tell you is that this makes the evaluation a “collaborative” effort between teachers and administrators because teachers now have more “input.” The “input” that I had to include on the evaluation form took me about four hours to type out.
Also, I don’t care what anybody says about this type of evaluation, it is no more objective than any other type of evaluation. In the end, it is still up to the administrator to decide if you are “proficient” or not (forget about getting a rating of “excellent” unless you are in good with administration).
As far as training goes, we had people from the CEC come in to train us, and it was, by far, the most useless training or professional development session I have ever attended (and believe me, there was plenty of competition). We were given Danielson’s book and told to read different segments of it. Every once in a while the lady training us would ring a set of chimes to let us know it was time to stop reading and listen to her “explain.” The only problem was that she admitted she knew absolutely nothing about our district’s evaluation plan and, therefore, couldn’t answer any questions about it.
I know what you’re probably thinking: Well then why the heck was she there? I wish I could answer that, but I know absolutely nothing about my district’s definition of training.
Ironic that Audrey was less that tactful towards the CTU when she visited our negotiations team in District 64 to clarify our questions about the new evaluation procedures in December. She bad mouthed Karen Lewis and the CTU for pulling away from the IEA and AFT in the final hour of the “table” discussions. Right there in front of us. Then, tried to convince us of the merits of the Danielson system. Then departed with a promise that we need to get use to the idea of a merit pay system which will surely be pushed in Illinois in the near future.
I’m not a teacher, but a retired PARA who always tried to keep up with this. My take is that if the RTTT containted too many strings, then screw it, and a few states did just that. The more states that don’t apply will give the Obama Admin the idea not to offer Federal aid with stings from a particular vantage point. Anyone who’s been watching has noticed that Obama has been quiet on this subject more recently (election cycle and all) .The talk at the time was that our Union President in Philly said he’d sign on (just to get stalled contract negiations going again) but that any new provison would have to be negotiated. I will get an update though..