2020 IL App (1st) 190066
FIFTH DIVISION September 4, 2020
No. 1-19-0066
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MOSES ELIAS, ) On Petition for Administrative ) Review from the Board of Petitioner, ) Education of the City of Chicago ) v. ) ) THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ) CHICAGO and JANICE JACKSON, Chief Executive ) Officer, ) ) Respondents. ) No. 18-1205-RS4
PRESIDING JUSTICE DELORT delivered the judgment of the court Justices Hoffman and Rochford concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The Board of Education’s order to terminate a teacher complied with the applicable law and was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 BACKGROUND
¶3 After a hearing, the respondent, the Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Board)
dismissed the petitioner, Moses Elias, from his position as a teacher at Lane Technical High
School. The Board determined that Elias received an unsatisfactory rating following his
remediation period and thus failed to satisfactorily complete his remediation. Elias seeks 1-19-0066
administrative review of that decision, arguing that the Board wrongfully terminated him. We
affirm the Board’s order.
¶4 FACTS
¶5 On August 12, 2015, the Board’s chief executive officer approved a charge against Elias,
alleging that his teaching performance was unsatisfactory. The Board issued ten specifications
relating to its charge: (1) Elias’s 2013-2014 summative rating from his evaluator was
unsatisfactory; (2) the following school year, he attended or was invited to an orientation session
focused, in part, on the teacher evaluation plan; (3) his evaluator selected a qualified consulting
teacher to assist him in improving his performance; (4) the evaluator developed a 90-school-day
remediation plan after giving Elias and the consulting teacher a chance to provide input into the
plan; (5) the evaluator, consulting teacher, and Elias signed the 90-school-day remediation plan;
(6) the evaluator conducted a formal mid-point evaluation of Elias’s performance using the CPS
Framework for Teaching; (7) at or around the mid-point evaluation, Elias met with the evaluator
and consulting teacher to discuss his progress; (8) at or around the conclusion of the remediation
period, the evaluator conducted a final evaluation of Elias’s performance using the CPS
Framework for Teaching; (9) based on the evaluator’s personal observations and other evidence,
the evaluator determined that Elias failed to attain “proficient” or better level of teaching
practice; and (10) no further remediation was necessary, rendering Elias subject to dismissal
under Section 24A of the Code, 105 ILCS 5/24A1-1 et seq. (West 2014) (Code). The charges
concluded that Elias was “subject to dismissal due to [his] unsatisfactory teaching performance”
and that dismissal “may result in [his] permanent ineligibility for future employment with the
Board.”
2 1-19-0066
¶6 Elias’s union requested a hearing on the charge before a mutually selected hearing officer
pursuant to section 34-85 of the Code (105 ILCS 5/34-85 (West 2014)). The parties selected
Brian Clauss as the hearing officer. Elias filed an answer to the charge denying the Board’s
allegations and all the underlying specifications. His answer included six affirmative defenses,
stating essentially that the Board would be unable to prove the allegations and conclusorily
stating, with no factual explanation, that Elias was denied his due process rights.
¶7 At the beginning of the hearing, the hearing officer summarized an off-the-record
discussion he had with the parties. He identified an “exhibit binder” containing the Board’s 22
exhibits. He recited that Elias’s counsel had time to review it, had no objection to the foundation
of any of the exhibits contained therein, “and that will be the stipulation that he’ll enter into.” He
continued: “of course that does not affect anybody’s ability to argue weight, inferences and
conclusions that should be drawn from these exhibits, but we won’t have to belabor the
procedural aspect of the hearing by asking a bunch of foundational questions. So you’ll stipulate
to the foundation, correct?” Elias’s counsel responded, “yes.”
¶8 The hearing officer then noted that there was a stipulation that there were no procedural
defects (in the underlying proceedings) and that the remediation case was procedurally sound.
Both attorneys so stipulated. As the hearing officer eventually issued an exceptionally detailed
written summary of the testimony and evidence he heard, we summarize only the testimony and
evidence most relevant to the issues which Elias raises on administrative review.
¶9 Amanda Smith testified that she is a project manager for performance improvement for
the Board. At the beginning of her testimony, she was asked to identify Exhibit 5 from the
exhibit binder, which was a “framework for teaching with critical attributes” used to evaluate
3 1-19-0066
teachers under the REACH 1 program. Referring to this exhibit, she explained that employees
who evaluate teachers must be state-certified. Teachers are evaluated using a rubric with four
“domains”: (1) planning and preparation; (2) classroom environment; (3) instruction; and (4)
professional responsibility. At the conclusion of her explanation of this exhibit, the Board’s
attorney asked to admit Exhibit 5 into evidence. The hearing officer declined to do so, stating,
“We do that all at the end”.
¶ 10 Smith testified that Elias did not file a grievance regarding his employee reviews. She
identified Elias’s signature on a sign-in sheet for a REACH training session he attended. She
explained that, based on her review of various exhibits, Elias was observed in the classroom
during the 2013-2014 school year and attended a pre-observation conference on October 4, 2013.
Following that school year’s evaluations, he received a score of 196.8, which was in the
“unsatisfactory” range on a scale where 210 was “developing” and 285 was “proficient”. She
identified a letter notifying Elias that he was being placed in a remediation status based on his
unsatisfactory rating.
¶ 11 During remediation, she explained, teachers must receive coaching from a consulting
educator who develops a 90-school-day remediation plan with the teacher. Elias’s consultant was
Thomas Scanlan 2, a certified middle- and high-school mathematics teacher. Following the
remediation period, Elias received a score of 186, again in the unsatisfactory range.
¶ 12 Christine Gonzales testified that she worked for the Board from 2007-2016 in
successively more responsible capacities, the last of which was assistant principal at Lane. She is
a mathematics specialist with two master’s degrees. She was the head of the mathematics
department at Lane during Elias’s tenure there. Although she had done REACH evaluations, she
1 The term stands for “Recognizing Educators Advancing Chicago’s Students”. 2 Scanlan’s name is spelled “Scanlon” in certain places in the record, but we use the spelling set forth on his Illinois State Board of Education certificate of credentials, which was an exhibit below.
4 1-19-0066
did not do the REACH evaluation of Elias. Her testimony focused on deficiencies which she
observed in Elias’s teaching performance which had occurred before his remediation period.
Elias’s attorney objected to this line of testimony, arguing that was irrelevant to the issue before
the hearing officer. Clauss overruled the objection in part, holding that the information could be
admitted as “limited purpose it shows the course of her duties and her interactions with Mr.
Elias, background about their interaction” but not for “any substance of the reason we’re here
today”.
¶ 13 Dr. Christopher Dignam testified that he is superintendent of a school district in
Highland Park, Illinois. Before taking that position, he was the principal of Lane and had
supervised the mathematics staff in his earlier position of assistant principal. Among other
credentials, he holds master’s degrees in curriculum and instruction, and in school leadership
administration. He also has a doctorate in teacher leadership and holds an Illinois state
superintendent’s certificate. He is a trained REACH evaluator whose work had been tested for
accuracy and lack of subjectivity through a “calibration” process under which two evaluators
evaluate the same teacher and then compare their scores for consistency within specified ranges.
He testified that he appointed Scanlan, who had a background in mathematics education, as
Elias’s consulting teacher. Elias, Scanlan, and Dignam developed Elias’s remediation plan
together. Dignam was Elias’s remediation rater. Dignam explained that the remediation process
is interactive, in that the teacher is provided ample opportunities during the remediation period to
submit evidence and pedagogical materials showing his teaching skills to the rater.
¶ 14 Dignam reviewed the history of Elias’s remediation process, which included a pre-
observation conference, classroom observation, and a post-observation conference. He identified
exhibits containing his notes regarding Elias’s teaching during the remediation period and his
5 1-19-0066
assigned scores on each domain of the REACH rubric, which he explained in detail. In summary,
Dignam found that while Elias showed a basic understanding of course material, pedagogy and
lesson preparation, he did not show a level of mastery above that basic level. Dignam took
particular issue with Elias’s failure to engage individual students based on their particular needs,
rather than addressing the class as a whole. As evidence, Dignam stated that students walked in
late without being called out for doing so, Elias having “no connection, explanation or purpose
of an audible video” played in class, students speaking and Elias speaking over the students
without addressing the interrupting students, students talking loudly during a quiz, and Elias
ignoring a student who failed to answer when called on. Dignam stated that Elias “consistently
struggled in a couple of areas,” one of which “was the managing student behavior, which also
lends to the culture of the classroom. Another was the active engagement with the students—for
example, “10 out of 18 students watching a video. The other 8 are doing something else other
than that.” Further, Dignam stated that Elias exhibited no leadership in communicating with
families.
¶ 15 Dignam provided Elias with an opportunity to offer evidence regarding his pedagogical
improvement at various points during the remediation process, but he did not do so. At the
conclusion of the remediation period, Dignam gave Elias a final score of 186, unsatisfactory.
Dignam explained that he has done about 30 teacher observations. Of those, 3 teachers were put
into REACH remediation, and Elias was the only one who failed to successfully complete it.
¶ 16 Dignam also explained his progressive evaluation of Elias during the interactive
remediation period, stating “I clearly remember Mr. Elias not taking recommendations that were
being made when I had provided those either first or second, really the second one is really a big
one for that year, of recommendations that would improve professional practice. *** A lot of
6 1-19-0066
work goes into pre-planning for Domain 1 and a lot of work you can see goes into Domains 2
and 3 with the notes that we were taking and sharing the evidence before we even meet for
Domain 4. I did not see an adjustment from his performance or instructional capacity from, you
know, if you say a progression, I did not see a progression. I did not believe it was close to
proficient.”
¶ 17 On November 19, 2014, Elias, Scanlan, and the principal signed a three-page remediation
plan which specified that Elias should, among other things, improve his student management
skills, read a particular publication on teaching improvement and “reflect on themes to inform
practice”. The plan, signed by Elias, states that his remediation will be governed by the score
given by Dignam at the conclusion of the 90-school-day period, using the REACH computation
methodology. On February 24, 2015, Dignam scored Elias following a mid-point evaluation.
¶ 18 Elias testified that he has a bachelor’s degree from Southern Illinois University which he
obtained while in military service, and a master’s degree in industrial engineering. He currently
works in the manufacturing industry but enjoyed teaching and would like to return to the
classroom. He is a nationally board certified teacher but does not have training or credentials in
REACH assessment. He claimed he had not seen some of the exhibits reviewed by the Board’s
witnesses but admitted to having received and offering input for the remediation plan. He
believed that since he complied with the Scanlan’s suggestions regarding his teaching style, there
was “no way” he could have received an unsatisfactory score following his remediation period.
He persistently indicated that he “disagreed” with evaluation comments about his teaching style
and attention to individual student needs. When asked why he should not have been rated
unsatisfactory, he pointed to his academic and professional credentials. He admitted agreeing to
be evaluated teaching a “difficult” pre-calculus class. He testified he did not have disagreements
7 1-19-0066
with his consulting teacher and received all the conferences required as part of the remediation
process. He also could not dispute that certain factual events which occurred in class occurred as
Dignam noted them.
¶ 19 At the conclusion of Elias’s testimony, the hearing adjourned. At no point did the
attorney for either side formally request admission of the exhibits into evidence. Both sides filed
post-hearing briefs.
¶ 20 On October 16, 2018, the hearing officer issued a 25-page order containing written
findings of fact, analysis of the applicable law, and a determination that the Board proved that
Elias did not successfully remediate. The order contains numerous references to the exhibits, and
it relies on them extensively, without commenting on their lack of formal admission on the
record.
¶ 21 In summary, the hearing officer noted that Dignam’s criticisms followed common
themes: lack of connection with students, guiding the class with little student interaction, and
providing few opportunities for students to demonstrate reasoning and learning. The hearing
officer also found that all of the entries in the pertinent exhibits supported Dignam’s assessment
of Elias; that the “Comments and Recommendations sections are replete with narrative on why
Respondent failed to achieve a Proficient rating”; that Elias “could not transform [his]
knowledge into teaching that met the criteria for a Proficient rating”; that Elias was “unable to
deliver instruction that rose to the level of Proficient at the end of the remediation period”; and
that there were no procedural infirmities that voided the remediation plan. Elias was provided an
opportunity to file exceptions to the hearing officer’s report. He did not do so.
¶ 22 On December 5, 2018, the Board adopted a resolution terminating Elias from his
employment. The resolution recited that the Board had considered Clauss’s findings of fact,
8 1-19-0066
conclusions of law, and recommendation; the record; and the parties’ post-hearing briefs. The
resolution further stated that the Board accepted Clauss’s “findings of fact and legal conclusions
and accepts the Hearing Officer’s recommendation for discharge of Mr. Elias.” This petition for
direct administrative review followed.
¶ 23 ANALYSIS
¶ 24 Section 24A-5(m) of the Code (105 ILCS 5/24A-5(m) (West 2014)) provides that the
Board may terminate a teacher who “fails to complete any applicable remediation plan with a
rating equal to or better than a ‘satisfactory’ or ‘proficient’ rating.” Section 34-85(a)(8) of the
Code (105 ILCS 5/34-85(a)(8) (West 2014)) provides that a public schoolteacher dismissed by
the Board may seek direct review in this court “in accordance with the Administrative Review
Law” (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2014)). The standard for judicial review of
administrative decisions, such as the one at issue here, is well established. We do not review the
decision of the hearing officer, but instead review the decision of the Board. Ahmad v. Board of
Education of the City of Chicago, 365 Ill. App. 3d 155, 162 (2006); Hearne v. Chicago School
Reform Board of Trustees of the Board of Education for the City of Chicago, 322 Ill. App. 3d
467, 478 (2001). We consider all issues of law and fact presented by the record. Speed District
802 v. Warning, 242 Ill. 2d 92, 111 (2011).
¶ 25 As a reviewing court, we may not interfere with the Board’s discretionary authority, but
may only review its decision to determine if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Raitzik v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 356 Ill. App. 3d 813, 823 (2005). The
Board’s findings on questions of fact are deemed prima facie true and correct (Speed District
802, 242 Ill. 2d at 111-12), and this court does not reweigh the evidence, make credibility
determinations, or resolve disputes in testimony or evidence. See Abrahamson v. Department of
9 1-19-0066
Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76, 88 (1992). The Board’s determination is against the
manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident, or, stated
another way, if “all reasonable and unbiased persons, acting within the limits prescribed by the
law and drawing all inferences in support of the finding, would agree that the finding is
erroneous.” Raitzik, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 824 (citing Daniels v. Police Board, 37 Ill. App. 3d 1018,
1023 (1976)).
¶ 26 We first address Elias’s argument regarding the lack of evidence that he failed to
successfully remediate. As noted above, Elias stipulated there were no procedural defects in the
remediation process. There was uncontroverted evidence that Elias participated in the required
pre-observation conference, observation and post-observation conference, and that Elias received
an unsatisfactory score at the conclusion of his remediation evaluation.
¶ 27 Elias contends that the remediation violated section 24A-5(k) of the Code (105 ILCS
5/24A-5(k) (West 2014)). That section provides that a remediation plan must include, in
pertinent part:
“(k) a mid-point and final evaluation by an evaluator during and at the end of the
remediation period *** [which] shall assess the teacher’s performance during the time
period since the prior evaluation; provided that the last evaluation shall also include an
overall evaluation of the teacher’s performance during the remediation period. A written
copy of the evaluations and ratings, in which any deficiencies in performance and
recommendations for correction are identified, shall be provided to and discussed with
the teacher within 10 school days after the date of the evaluation, unless an applicable
collective bargaining agreement provides to the contrary. These subsequent evaluations
shall be conducted by an evaluator. The consulting teacher shall provide advice to the
10 1-19-0066
teacher rated ‘unsatisfactory’ on how to improve teaching skills and to successfully
complete the remediation plan. The consulting teacher shall participate in developing the
remediation plan, but the final decision as to the evaluation shall be done solely by the
evaluator, unless an applicable collective bargaining agreement provides to the contrary.”
(Emphasis added).
¶ 28 Elias’s contention of error is grounded in the above-italicized clause, which requires the
Board to “assess the teacher’s performance during the time period since the prior evaluation”.
More specifically, he claims that the mid-point and final evaluations were based on single
observations, rather than on his overall performance during the span of time preceding each of
the two benchmark evaluations. We agree with the Board that the record contains evidence to the
contrary. See supra ¶ 16. Dignam’s notes also show that he considered Elias’s work outside the
narrow scope of his live classroom observations. Dignam noted that Elias lacked self-reflection,
as he did not “provide an accurate assessment of the lesson’s effectiveness via evidence or how
the lesson could be improved via professional practice”; that he was “very basic” in keeping
records; that he communicated with families at a minimal level; and that he had not shown
“initiative” or “ownership” in professional growth. Some of these observations are obviously
based on information gleaned from outside the classroom observations, presumably from
Dignam’s interviews and meetings with Elias throughout the remediation process. We therefore
do not find that the Board erred by failing to submit sufficient evidence of its compliance with
section 24A-5(k) of the Code.
¶ 29 In the same section of his brief, Elias also argues that evidence of his experience and
various teaching certifications should have been given some weight in determining whether he
successfully remediated. But, as the Board correctly points out, state law gave it the clear
11 1-19-0066
authority to terminate Elias based on the score he received at the conclusion of the remediation
process. See 105 ILCS 5/24A-5(m) (West 2014).
¶ 30 Elias next argues that the Board improperly considered material submitted in a post-
hearing brief drafted by the Board’s prosecuting attorney. He notes that the Board’s termination
resolution contains a clause stating that the Board considered “post-hearing briefs,” which he
claims are replete with unfavorable unadmitted evidence of his earlier teaching, which was never
admitted into evidence. Some of this material relates to deficiencies in Elias’s teaching that
occurred before his remediation year, to which Gonzales testified. As noted above, the hearing
officer sustained Elias’s objection to this testimony, stating that this evidence could be admitted
only as background, because the issue before him was, in fact, whether Elias had successfully
completed the remediation year, and not his conduct in past years. The hearing officer’s report
summarizes Gonzales’s testimony, but does not comment further on its admissibility. Notably,
though, the hearing officer’s analysis relies exclusively on the remediation rating process
conducted by Dignam. It does not mention Gonzales’s testimony regarding Elias’s conduct in
earlier school years. Even so, reference to post-hearing briefs is a fleeting one, contained in a
preamble full of pro forma recitals. The actual decretal section of the termination resolution
contains no corresponding reference to evidence submitted in post-hearing briefs. It states that
the board considered the hearing officer’s report, the “record of the dismissal hearing” and “any
exceptions and memoranda of law submitted by the parties”. (Emphasis added). A fair reading of
the Board’s resolution as a whole, therefore, makes it clear that the Board grounded its decision
to terminate Elias solely in the evidence submitted at the hearing. Elias makes the same argument
regarding the inclusion of Scanlan’s notes in the Board’s post-hearing brief, which fails for the
same reason.
12 1-19-0066
¶ 31 Elias’s final contention of error is that none of the exhibits should have been considered
because they were never formally admitted into evidence. But Elias stipulated to their foundation
at the beginning of the hearing, and he never filed any exceptions to the hearing officer’s report,
a report which repeatedly discussed the exhibits as if they had been formally admitted. Section 3-
111(b) of the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-111(b) (West 2014) provides:
“Technical errors in the proceedings before the administrative agency or its failure to
observe the technical rules of evidence shall not constitute grounds for the reversal of the
administrative decision unless it appears to the court that such error or failure materially
affected the rights of any party and resulted in substantial injustice to him or her.”
Because Elias was fully aware of the exhibits, stipulated to their foundation, and did not object to
their presentation at any time before or after the hearing, and had ample opportunities to
challenge their admission, we cannot say that the Board’s reliance on them created a “substantial
injustice” to Elias.
¶ 32 CONCLUSION
¶ 33 For these reasons, we find that the Board’s decision that Elias failed to successfully
remediate was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was procedurally sound. The
ratings by Dignam were well supported by his recorded observations and not substantially
contradicted by Elias’s own evidence. We reject Elias’s various claims of procedural error and
thus affirm the Board’s order terminating him from employment as a public schoolteacher.
¶ 34 Affirmed.