State’s teachers, principals may be graded on students’ test scores

BY ROSALIND ROSSI

Education Reporter rrossi@suntimes.com 

All Illinois teachers and principals would be evaluated for the first time in part on how their students perform on tests under new rules proposed Friday by state education officials.

The rules proposed by the Illinois State Board of Education face a 45-day public comment period before being considered for final approval.

The move mirrors a national push to link educator evaluations to how students are doing. Some 20 Illinois districts, including Evanston District 65, currently consider student performance in their teacher evaluations.

The Illinois rules would require teachers to be evaluated based on at least two measures of student “growth’’ over at least two points in time. Off-the-shelf or districtwritten tests could be the basis of one growth measure; teacher-written assessments could be the second. Teacher evaluations also must include observations and ratings of a teacher’s classroom practices by trained evaluators.

Under the Illinois Performance Evaluation Reform Act signed in 2010, only Chicago is allowed to measure student growth using the state’s Illinois Standards Achievement Tests.

The Illinois Education Association successfully lobbied to prohibit using ISAT elsewhere in Illinois as the basis for any growth calculations because “there’s universal agreement that it’s not a very good test,’’ said IEA executive director Audrey Soglin. “Our teachers don’t have faith in it.’’

Chicago Teachers Union officials say the law was negotiated under different CTU leadership and current union leaders are firmly against using ISATs for any student growth calculations.

“That’s not what the state test was developed for,’’ said CTU Quest Center coordinator Carol Caref.

Chicago Public School spokeswoman Marielle Sainvilus said what tests will be used is open to negotiation.

Under the proposed rules, the new teacher evaluation tools would be phased in, starting in September 2012 with at least 300 Chicago public schools where student growth must count for at least 25 percent of any teacher evaluation. Remaining Chicago schools would beadded the following fall. All schools in the state must use the new evaluation criteria by September 2016.

By September 2014, student growth must count for at least 30 percent of a teacher’s evaluation.

All principals would be evaluated based on the new rules starting in September 2012.

Under another new law, results of the new evaluations can be tied to teacher employment decisions, such as tenure acquisition and layoffs.

Some educators have raised questions about the fairness of using student test growth to evaluate teachers, saying some teachers don’t teach tested subjects; some team-teach or get extra help that may muddy who is responsible for growth, and growth calculations are not an exact science.

“It’s important to figure these things out,” said Robin Steans of Advance Illinois, which supported the rule change. “At the end of the day, all teachers want to be advancing their kids over the course of the year. To the extent that they don’t know if they are doing that, these [evaluations] will drive very healthy discussions.’’

Thank You from the IEA President

http://vimeo.com/31928132

Pension Issue Illustrated

A fabulous video by an Illinois art teacher explaining the inequity in the teacher pension system:


http://vimeo.com/27798857

State Pension Overhaul Caught in Limbo

by KRISTEN McQUEARY and DAVID GREISING | Nov 7, 2011

 

Lawmakers have tinkered on the edges of the state budget during the fall veto session, but it now appears they could close shop for the year on Thursday without plugging the deep hole at the budget’s core: Illinois’s underfinanced pension systems.

 

Pension reform has been one of the most contentious issues of this legislative session. The Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago has engaged in sharp-elbowed lobbying to increase workers’ pension contributions and sponsored a $1.5 million television campaign, under the name “Illinois is Broke.” Unions brought hundreds of state workers, teachers and police officers to Springfield two weeks ago to shout down plans that would force them to pay more toward their pensions.

 

The problem is severe. By not contributing adequately to its pension systems for decades, Illinois has racked up an estimated $139 billion in obligations, $85 billion it cannot pay. Resources that have been set aside meet only about 38 percent of pension liabilities, according to the nonpartisan Commission on Government Forecasting & Accountability. The Pew Center on the States has called Illinois’ pension problem the worst in the country.

 

Lawmakers are concerned that what the state owes to future retirees is playing havoc with the budget. State law requires Illinois to catch up with its pension payments by 2045, an effort that could cost the state $20 billion a year starting by then. And the sale of $17.2 billion in pension bonds in recent years has helped raise the state’s indebtedness and brought Illinois’s credit rating to the brink of junk status.

The focus of the pension controversy this week — Senate Bill 512, which would require current state workers to pay more toward their retirements — was held over from the spring session because legislative leaders lacked the votes to pass it. Speaker Michael Madigan, the Democratic majority leader in the House, and Tom Cross, the minority leader, hosted meetings and public hearings about it over the summer. Each committed to line up at least 30 votes, enough for House passage.

Even if the bill passes the House, the Senate president, John Cullerton (D-Chicago), has said he believes it is unconstitutional.

 

Interviews with legislative leaders, union officials and business leaders suggest that a vote will probably not take place this week. Pressure from organized labor, incumbents’ nervousness about running for re-election in new districts, concern over inciting primary-election challenges and legislators’ penchant for delay when facing politically treacherous issues are creating a strong headwind.

 

Ultimately, one person will decide whether to call the pension bill for a vote: Madigan. According to legislative and business leaders who have spoken to him, he has not revealed his plans. “This might be something he’d rather do in the spring, but he has not expressed that to me,” said Cross, who is sponsoring the bill with Madigan. “He doesn’t always explain to you what he’s going to do.”

Cross, Madigan and other legislative leaders met twice last week, but the pension bill was not directly addressed in either session, participants said.

 

If Madigan does not call the bill for a vote, pension overhaul will be put off at least until the legislature convenes in January. At that point, a delay until after the March 2012 primary may be inevitable, to spare lawmakers making a potentially troublesome vote just before their constituents go to the polls.

Tyrone Fahner, the Civic Committee president, deplored any delay. “This all comes from basic cowardice, and I mean that word sincerely,” he said.

 

The Civic Committee estimates that a delay into the spring session would tack on an additional $7 billion in unfinanced liabilities and interest on pension bonds.

 

“The situation only gets worse,” said Fahner, a former state attorney general and former chairman of the Mayer Brown law firm.

 

The bill is still being amended. As written, it would require current state workers, General Assembly members, judges, university staff and teachers to help ease the state’s pension crunch by paying more toward their retirements.

 

Workers enrolled in the state’s five pension funds would choose among three options. To receive the same benefits currently guaranteed them, they would need to pay anywhere from an additional 4.37 percent for teachers to 23.04 percent more for General Assembly members. They could also choose to switch to a defined-benefit plan, which would require them to work longer to receive a higher benefit. 

 

Or they could pay less into a defined-contribution plan, which would move them into a 401(k)-style investment vehicle with a 6 percent contribution from employees and a 6 percent match by the state.

 

By giving workers choices and focusing on contributions rather than on benefit cuts, the bill’s supporters hope to comply with a clause in the State Constitution that defines a pension as a contractual commitment, “the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”

Proponents say the Senate bill gets around the constitutional issue by asking employees, in effect, to volunteer for any changes. They also argue that increased contributions are not technically the same as benefit reductions. Union officials scoff at both suggestions.

 

“It’s volunteering with a gun to your head,” said Henry Bayer, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, a leader of the union opposition to the proposed changes.

 

The dispute over constitutionality has led to a war of writs between corporate-backed proponents of change and the labor-led opposition. Eric Madiar, chief legal counsel for Senate Democrats, in a 76-page legal brief cited transcripts from the 1970 state constitutional convention, case law and other primary sources as evidence that pension benefits could not be reduced from the moment a worker is hired through retirement.

 

The Civic Committee hired a legal team led by a leading appellate lawyer, David W. Carpenter, and argued that a legislature required to protect the state’s general welfare could not commit fiscal suicide by a blind adherence to pension obligations.

 

Union leaders warn lawmakers to get the constitutionality issue right. “You pass a bill like 512, and we’re going to be in court for two years,” Bayer said. “We’re going to be successful, and then we’ve delayed for two years and we haven’t begun to solve the problem.”

 

Union members are flooding lawmakers’ offices with phone calls and angry e-mails. Hundreds of state workers, teachers and police officers staged a protest in October, chanting, “We paid our share; you pay yours.”

 

“Honor the agreements that we have in place,” said a protester, Dan Dunlap, president of A.F.S.C.M.E. Local 1133 in Dwight. “The money was there when the agreements were put into place. They need to find the money that they squandered.”

 

While Madigan’s game plan is difficult even for insiders to read, he could move quickly. In March 2010, Madigan and Cullerton pushed through a significant pension reform bill, moving the proposal through committees and onto the floor for passage in a single afternoon.

 

Madigan’s spokesman said the speaker would call Senate Bill 512 as soon as Cross signaled he was ready. Yet without confirmation from Madigan that he will have the 30 Democratic votes needed for passage, Cross is likely to wait.

 

“When our friends on the other side of the aisle are ready, we’ll be there,” Cross said. “I’ve been living this issue for so long. I’m ready to get it done.”

Letter: Teachers Don’t Deserve SB 512

The State Journal-Register

Posted Nov 06, 2011 @ 11:00 PM

Legislators returning to Springfield on Tuesday will attempt to pass SB 512, which effectively reduces the pension benefits of current Illinois teachers. Unfortunately, sponsors Tyrone Fahner, president of the Chicago Civic Committee, and our elected legislative leaders Tom Cross and Michael Madigan are not only ignoring the Illinois Constitution pension protection clause but also the following facts:

*SB 512 will violate the Early Retirement Option agreement teachers have paid for in addition to their regular pension payment. This agreement allows teachers to retire under their current pension benefit plan at age 55 and 35 years. (Imagine making extra payments on your mortgage to pay it off early and then being told the rules have changed and none of them count.)

*SB 512 will destroy current teachers’ only retirement plan by increasing their contributions and making it unaffordable for them. (Illinois teachers already pay more for their pension than all other states but six.) Legislators will admit they have no idea how many teachers would be able to stay in their current retirement plan if this bill is passed.

*SB 512 will cost Illinois taxpayers $34 billion in 15 years.

*SB 512 will fail to pay down the pension debt and has little relation to standard actuarial practices

Correcting some of the propaganda reported by the Chicago Civic Committee:

*Teachers do not receive an overly generous pension but only average when compared to 85 other public employee retirement systems nationwide.

*Teachers do not receive a full pension after 20 years, but only what is earned.

*Teachers do not receive free retirement health insurance, an average teacher has $577 deducted each month from their retirement check.

*Teachers do not receive any retirement cost-of-living adjustment until after age 61 and no Social Security later.

It is unconscionable for legislators to change the pensions of nearly 136,000 current public school teachers. The teachers of Illinois do not deserve this!

Senate Bill 512 - IMPORTANT

This afternoon, a legislative committee is expected to hear the new amendment to the pension cutting bill (SB 512).

<http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/97/SB/PDF/09700SB0512ham002.pdf>

The amendment to Senate Bill 512 was filed yesterday. It deals with the specifics of the pension bill and addresses the problems in the original proposal  that would have made the bill a disaster for the pension systems and Illinois taxpayers had it passed in its original form last spring.

<http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x2128843634/TRS-report-raises-questions-about-timing-of-pension-vote>

Among the key provisions of the revised bill:

 1.  The employee contribution for TRS members who elect to stay in Tier 1 would increase to 13.77% of salary (from 9.4% of salary currently) beginning July 1, 2013 until June 30, 2016.  Beginning on July 1, 2016 the contribution could only increase an additional 2% to a maximum of 15.77% of salary.  The amendment also increases the contribution rates for those in SURS to 15.31% of salary during the same period (currently, 8% of salary).  The final increase in contributions for SURS would put the member’s contribution at 17.31% of salary beginning in July 1, 2016.  It is understood that after the first three years of the contribution increase, that the recalculation, as required by the amendment, will force member’s contributions up to the maximum increase of 2% whether they are in TRS or SURS.

2.  The amendment changes the timeline for election and when it would apply to current member benefits.  All benefits earned after July 1, 2013 would be impacted by either the new Tier 1 contribution level, participation in Tier 2 or participation in the DC plan.

3.  The increase in employee contribution cannot be used for the purpose of calculating the money purchase plan under the act.  This is a clear decrease in an existing benefit.

4.  In school districts where the employee contribution is currently being paid by the employer the additional contribution required under the legislation would have to be renegotiated.  This changes the terms of existing contracts.  This is a new provision of the legislation.


IEA members are encouraged to contact legislators about SB 512:

Message - IEA opposes SB 512 because:

 *   It is an unconstitutional diminishment of pension benefits
 *   As teachers cannot receive full social security benefits, even when they qualify through other employment,  their pensions are their life savings
 *   Our members have always paid their retirement costs; it is the state that has not kept its part of the bargain
 *   Reasonable retirement benefits allow public education to attract the teachers and staff our students deserve

Actions

 *   IEA members are urged to contact state legislators immediately.
    *   Call 888/412-6570 and follow the prompts to be connected to your legislator . Use the above talking points, or
    *   Go to the IEA website

<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hv4ahngab&et=1108435416828&s=54795&e=001TzvCrvcVSgtvrDniiHdFk0PkxvgIjpWHGbIGdJWMdom-bTlxFZxghWsDA0QYt6TzCS6O-Aw74FF9b-OGe5mbs4787fywW0Gjp8UDTPp95zZa56TL6sIsFw

Click on the pension tab:

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=hv4ahngab&et=1108435416828&s=54795&e=001TzvCrvcVSgvLlkABylLqh4xyGXQ9rk3DabJT6ujlm0t1uoYqmvQaTZqDdWlWzPqOr-Tq-EF8VcgUDt_0zyPzMBscZSOpnRjYY7cWbu7TiXmYL1MCmzmEZmGCbG2LaA6ZmbDEcC9VvfhLenXpm9LQTA==>

At the top of the page and you will see a link that will let you easily send an e-mail to your legislators.

 *   Tell lawmakers to oppose SB 512 for for the reasons cited above

    *   More information is available on the IEA website

<applewebdata://A1F1CFFA-7E40-4D02-934B-D49A7B107393/www.ieanea.org>

Two-Minute Pension Video

http://vimeo.com/27798857

The Pension Attack Continues

The group of millionaires and billionaires who want to cut the pensions of hard working public employees are scrambling to put together a new proposal after their original plan was exposed as adding $34 billion to pension costs.

 

Since last spring, the Chicago-based Civic Committee has tried to ram through the legislature a bill that would have cut pension benefits for active employees. But, as IEA reported last week, the Civic Committee's plan would have caused the state's cost for pensions to skyrocket by $34 billion over 15 years, despite the plan being promoted as a way for the state to save money.

 

Now, in reaction to this embarrassment, the billionaires are reportedly tweaking their proposal to try to eliminate the additional damage to taxpayers.  It is clear that this group cannot be trusted when it comes to pensions. They have not made their proposal available for analysis by experts, so the impact of the plan on taxpayers and the financial health of the pension systems cannot be determined independently.

 

We need all 132,000 IEA members to participate in the battle to stop illegal and unfair pension legislation from becoming law.

 

The new plan, which may be introduced during next week's legislative session, is unacceptable:

 

1. It is unconstitutional to reduce benefits for active employees.
2. For most education employees, their pension is only form of retirement security because teachers can't collect social security.
3. It is unfair to ask teachers, who loyally paid their portion into the state's pension system, to contribute 50 percent more if they want to benefit from the system they've counted on all their careers. The pension problem is a result of politicians using the pension systems as a credit card to pay for other state services.

 All IEA members are urged to contact their legislators this week by: 1) Call 888/412-6570, follow the prompts to be connected to your legislator and use the above talking points, or 2) Go to the IEA website, click on the pension tab at the top of the page and you will see a link to e-mail your legislators.

 

On Sunday, you will be contacted with instructions on what you can do next week to make your voice heard with legislators. It is imperative we put forth our best effort to combat this proposal.

 

To make sure you have the most updated news, please go to the "My Profile" section of the IEA website and update your contact information with a non-school e-mail address that you check as well as an updated phone number