Colorado SB 191 May2010

Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 24

Colorado Senate Bill 191

Improving Evaluations, Teacher


Tenure and Placement in Our State’s
Public School System
SB 191 Overview
 Help define teacher & principal
“effectiveness”
 Weaken the legal promise of tenure
(aka “non-probationary status”)
 End practice of direct placement &
“Dance of the Lemons”
 A landmark reform?
Importance of Teacher Quality
 Teacher Quality Makes a Difference
 One year of great teacher vs. average teacher =
5 percentile points in test scores
 Three years in the classroom of great teacher
vs. poor teacher = 50 percentile points
 Teacher Quality on Decline
 Fewer top-notch students attracted to teaching
 Steady decline since 1960s
 Not indicting individual efforts / achievements
 Training, Licensure, Compensation,
Evaluation, Retention
Background: The Problem
 Evaluations: The Widget Effect
 Non-probationary teachers evaluated once
every three years
 Binary evaluation system does not tell enough
about instructional quality
 99+% of Denver, Pueblo teachers rated
“satisfactory”
 Inadequate supports to improve teaching
Background: The Problem
 Tenure-like job protections
 1990: “Tenure” removed in name only
 Not enough ineffective teachers weeded
out during probationary period
 Low bar of 3 years + satisfactory
 Jeffco provision (2005 IB)
 Dismissing non-probationary teachers:
rare, costly, time-consuming
 Alfred Wilder ($125,000)
 Susan Romeo ($145,000)
Background: The Problem
 Direct placement: Dancing Lemons
 Poorest, most disadvantaged students
tend to have least effective teachers
 One principal “squeezes” them out,
another principal must place them
 Lincoln HS principal: “It's about schools
being able to chart their own destiny.”
 School environment may contribute to
individual teacher effectiveness
Race to the Top
 Administered by US Dept of Education
 Part of ARRA / stimulus package (2009)
 $4.35 billion given out in 2 Rounds
 4 reform areas: Great Teachers and
Leaders carried greatest weight
 Tennessee & Delaware Win Cash
 Both tie tenure/evaluations to student
 Colorado loses Round I (14th of 16)
 $175 million up for grabs in Round II
Governor’s Council
 January: Gov Bill Ritter creates
Council for Educator Effectiveness
 Recommend statewide definitions for
principal & teacher effectiveness,
guidelines to implement new system
 15 members: CDE (1), CCHE (1), CEA
(4), CASE (2), CASB (2), CLCS (1),
CoPTA (1), 1 recent grad, 1 policy expert
 Collaboration and consensus
What SB 191 Will & Won’t Do
 Evaluations & Effectiveness: Focus
Council on clear, high standard
 Not driven by CSAP scores
 Weaken tenure-like job protections
for consistently ineffective teachers
 No change to current “due process”
 Principal consent and teacher advice
required for direct teacher placement
Teacher & Principal Evaluations
 Focus Council on clear, high standard
 Evaluations performed every year
 At least 50% of teacher AND principal
evaluations tied to academic growth
 Multiple fair and transparent measures –
not just CSAP tests
 Mobility, special ed, at-risk status
 Three levels: Highly effective, effective,
ineffective
Effectiveness and “Tenure”
 Probationary teachers: 3 consecutive
years of effective evaluations
 Gain tenure-like protections
 Non-prob teachers: 2 consecutive
years of ineffective evaluations
 Lose tenure-like protections
Direct Placement vs. Mutual Consent
 Teacher placement requires principal consent
& advice of at least two teachers
 Effective non-probationary teachers who aren’t
placed enter priority hiring pool
 Non-probationary teachers who lose their jobs
due to RIF given lists of all available district jobs
 Non-probationary teachers who don’t find job
within 12 months or two hiring cycles are placed
on unpaid leave
 School districts and unions can apply for
waiver of mutual consent provisions
“Michael Johnston, Superstar”
 Lead sponsor of the bill: Yale grad,
Teach for America alum, former HS
principal, & former Obama adviser
 Senator Michael Johnston, SD 34 (D)
 Other sponsors: Sen Nancy Spence;
Rep Christine Scanlan, Carole Murray
 Initial co-sponsors: 9 Democrats and
9 Republicans in total
Coalition of Support
 Stand for Children
 http://GreatTeachersandLeaders.org
 Business Groups / Chambers
 Community Groups
 Metro Superintendents (Cindy Stevenson)
 DPS, CASE & CASB
 State Board of Education
 Ritter, Owens, Romer & Lamm (Guvs)
 American Federation of Teachers
800-Pound Opponent: CEA
 State’s largest teachers union
provided sole opposition to SB 191
 NEA president testified in Senate Ed
 Arguments:
 Unfunded mandate
 Implemented too fast [Amended]
 Don’t judge teachers by test scores
 Teachers losing “due process”
Lobbying on Release Time
 Dozens of CEA member teachers at
Capitol for committee hearings, to
urge legislators to Vote NO on SB 191
 Many used special union leave days
 In Jeffco, 275 days / yr + substitute cost
 In Denver, 150 days (+100 reimbursed)
 More accountability needed for use of tax
dollars and students’ time
Drama in the Senate
 Senate Ed Committee (Apr 21-23):
Teachers testified on both sides
 Federico Pena vs. Dennis van Roekel
 Passed 7-1 with provisional Dem support
 The dental analogy & academic growth
 7 Democrats joined all Republicans in
passing SB 191
Drama in the House
 Passed House Ed Committee after midnight
on May 6: 7-6 vote
 Lots of tears, high-strung emotions
 Rep Ferrandino, Rep Todd, et al.
 Rep Max Tyler: compared challenging kids to
maggot-infested flour
 Amendment battle to avoid filibuster
 Binding arbitration provision for ineffective
teachers – 2013 sunset added
 8 Dems (5 from Denver) voted Yes
What’s Next? (Part I)
 Mar 2011: Council recommends
effectiveness definitions, procedures
to implement new evaluation system
 Sep 2011: State Board adopts rules
 Nov 2011: CDE provides resource
bank for local evaluation systems
 Feb 2012: Legislative opportunity to
review and veto State Board rules
What’s Next? (Part II)
 2011-12: School districts develop
new evaluation systems (CDE helps)
 2012-13: Evaluation system tested
 2013-14: Statewide rollout of new
evaluation system
 Aug 2014: Districts urge effective
teachers into high-need schools
 2014-15: Full & final implementation
SB 191 in the Final Analysis
 Rebalances focus of education
employment from “paperwork and
seniority” to “performance” (R Hess)
 Shawn Mitchell: “…Not as dramatic as
it proponents hope nor as cataclysmic
as its opponents fear.”
 CO far more likely to win Race to Top
 CEA-Democratic relations greatly
strained… hope for future reforms?
Education Policy Center
 Independence Institute
(since 1985)
 In-house events
 Monthly e-newsletter:
sign up
 iVoices podcasts
 Independent Thinking
TV show
 Papers & op-eds
 Blogs …
Education Policy Center
 www.i2i.org
 www.SchoolChoiceforKids.org
 www.EdIsWatching.org
 www.IndependentTeachers.org
Education Policy Center
 Pam Benigno, Director (pam@i2i.org)
 Ben DeGrow, Policy Analyst (ben@i2i.org)
 Marya DeGrow, Research Associate
 Raaki Garcia-Ulam, Website Outreach Coordinator
 Office Phone: 303-279-6536

You might also like