Two Consecutive “Needs Improvement” Ratings Can Lead to Remediation Plan

In Board of Education for Rockford Public School District No. 205 v. Illinois State Board of Education, et al., the appellate court held that Rockford Public School District No. 205 (“District”) did not violate the School Code when it placed a tenured teacher on a formal Remediation Plan following her receipt of two consecutive “needs improvement” evaluation ratings, even though the teacher never received an “unsatisfactory” rating. The court also held that the evidence established that the teacher failed to successfully remediate her performance and upheld her dismissal.

In this case, a tenured teacher with the District, received a “needs improvement” evaluation rating on April 22, 2016. As a result, the District placed the teacher on a Professional Development Plan, as required by Section 24A-5 of the School Code. At the conclusion of the Professional Development Plan, she was once again rated as “needs improvement.” The evaluation plan developed between the District and the teachers’ union provided that tenured teachers who receive two consecutive “needs improvement” ratings will be placed on a formal Remediation Plan. The teacher therefore was placed on a Remediation Plan and ultimately received a final evaluation rating of “needs improvement” at the conclusion of the Remediation Plan. Because she failed to achieve a proficient or better rating following the completion of the Remediation Plan, the District terminated her employment.

The teacher requested a hearing before a hearing officer appointed by ISBE. Prior to the hearing, she filed a motion with the hearing officer, in which she argued that the District violated the School Code by placing her on a Remediation Plan even though she had not received an “unsatisfactory” evaluation rating. She argued that under Section 24A-5 of the School Code, only tenured teachers who receive “unsatisfactory” evaluation ratings may be placed on a Remediation Plan. The hearing officer agreed with the teacher’s argument and found that the District did not have the authority under the School Code to place her on a Remediation Plan because she had never received an “unsatisfactory” rating.

The District appealed the hearing officer’s decision to circuit court. At the circuit court, the District argued that the School Code is completely silent as to the process for tenured teachers who receive consecutive “needs improvement” ratings. The District argued that because the School Code does not address this situation, the District, in collaboration with the teachers’ union, provided in its evaluation plan that teachers who receive consecutive “needs improvement” ratings will be placed on a Remediation Plan. The District contended that this process was not prohibited by the School Code, and the circuit court agreed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing before the hearing officer.

Following the evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer concluded that the evidence did not establish that the teacher failed to remediate, and he ordered that she be reinstated. The District again appealed to the circuit court. The circuit held that the hearing officer’s findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The teacher then appealed to the appellate court. At the appellate court, she once again argued that the District violated the School Code by placing her on the Remediation Plan. The appellate court rejected her argument and affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The appellate court concluded that because the School Code was silent as to the process for tenured teachers who receive consecutive “needs improvement” ratings, the District was free to develop a process, in collaboration with the teachers’ union, that provided for those teachers to be placed on a Remediation Plan and dismissed if they failed to successfully remediate their performance.

Source: Board of Education for Rockford Public School District No. 205 v. Illinois State Board of Education, et al., 2022 IL App (2d) 210187