Joint Committees Related to Teacher Evaluation
There are four functions of joint administration/union committees that relate to teacher evaluation. Two of these—bargaining the
substance of evaluation plans and bargaining procedures for evaluation and remediation plans—have been permitted since the IELRA
became effective in 1984. The other two—incorporating student growth into evaluation plans and setting criteria to determine
reduction in force order based partially on final evaluation ratings—are required by recent changes to the School Code.
This chart shows the four functions of joint evaluation-related committees and the different concepts that must be applied in order to
differentiate each of the functions.
Evaluation Procedures
Evaluation Substance
1. Mandatory subject of
bargaining if either
party raises the issue.
1. Permissive subject of
bargaining if either party
raises the issue.
Examples:
 Procedures used to
assess performance
 Mechanical aspects
of evaluation—
forms, location,
number of
observations or
artifacts that will be
used to determine
final rating, etc.
 Timing
 Appropriate
remediation
procedures
Examples:
Areas evaluated
Who conducts
evaluation
Level of performance
expected
Weight of each area
evaluated




2. Either party may legally
refuse to bargain any
permissive subject,
including those related to
the substance of
evaluation plans.
PERA
SB7
1. Joint Committee must be
established in every district
to incorporate data and
indicators of student
growth as a factor in rating
teacher performance into
the teacher evaluation plan
by the time PERA
evaluations are
implemented in that
district.
1. Joint Committee must be established
in every district to address issues
related to placement in RIF
groupings.
2. Must be equal number of
representatives from school
board and union-selected
teachers.
4. Majority vote of all committee
members required for agreement to
any changes to statutory RIF
groupings.
2. Must meet each school year with first
meeting no later than December 1.
3. Must be equal number of
representatives from school board and
union-selected teachers.
a. Joint committee must consider
and may agree to criteria taking
people from Group 2 and moving
1
Evaluation Procedures
2. Conducted by
bargaining teams or
committees
empowered to
bargain.
3. Either party may
insist to impasse on a
position related to
these issues.
4. Employer may
legally impose last,
best offer if no
agreement.
5. No legal requirement
that a joint committee
to discuss these
topics be formed.
However, some
districts may have a
standing committee
for this purpose.
Evaluation Substance
PERA
3. Neither party may insist to 3. Plan must meet, or exceed,
impasse on a position
standards for student
related to these issues.
growth outlined in
§ 24A-7.
4. Employer could ask for
teacher/union input
4. Committee must reach
without bargaining these
consensus on the following
issues.
issues:
5. No legal requirement that
a joint committee to
discuss these topics be
formed. However, some
districts may have a
standing committee for
this purpose.
6. If no agreement, employer
may set substantive
portions of evaluation as
an inherent managerial
right.
a. Specifically describe
how student growth will
be used in evaluation
process and the overall
weight, likely no less
than 30%, that student
growth will have in the
final rating.
b. What student assessment
will be used and the
weight of each.
c. Methodology for
measuring student
growth.
d. Decide how results of
student growth measures
will be translated to
evaluation standards.
2
SB7
to Group 3 if the teacher has a
Needs Improvement and a
Proficient/Satisfactory in the last
two summative ratings.
b. Joint committee must consider
and may agree to alternative
definition for Group 4 which, if
agreed to, must account for prior
evaluation ratings and may
account for other factors related to
district educational objectives.
c. May agree to define “performance
rating” as a rating given by
another district and use it for RIF
grouping placement.
d. No authority to agree to any other
modifications for RIF.
e. Joint committee members may,
within 10 days of RIF list being
published (at least 75 days before
end of each school year), request
a list showing most recent and
prior ratings of teachers,
identified only by years of
service. District has 5 days to
product list. If the joint
committee member has good faith
belief that disproportionate
Evaluation Procedures
Evaluation Substance
PERA
e. Criteria other than
student growth that will
be used in evaluating
teachers and the weight
each will have.
SB7
number of senior teachers have
received a recent, lower rating,
joint committee member may
request whole committee review
to determine whether a trend. By
end of school term, joint
committee, or a member of it,
may submit report of review to
board and union.
5. Does not make decisions
regarding use of student
growth a mandatory subject
of bargaining. All districts
must incorporate student
5. If not using a 3 or 4 category rating
growth.
system, district must consult joint
committee regarding the basis for
6. If, within 180 cal days of
assigning one of the 4 summative
1st meeting the committee
ratings to each old rating that will be
has not reached agreement,
used to determine RIF sequence.
the district shall implement
the state-developed model
6. If no agreement, default to standard
plan, which includes
groupings.
student growth accounting
for 50% of final rating.
7. Must have agreement by February 1
of any school year in order for that
7. If consensus cannot be
agreement to apply to that year’s RIF.
reached on some portions
of the plan, the local and
8. Agreement applies until it is amended
district will default only to
or terminated by joint committee.
those portions of the state
plan.
3