Fears watches overpriced

Sources

Good Housekeeping

High school English teacher Ben Jackson isn’t afraid of a proposed state law that would tie his job status to how well his students do on tests. It’s a teacher’s job, Jackson said, to instill students with a “desire to succeed,” to make them care about state exams — even ones that don’t affect their grades. The legislation would ensure schools keep teachers “not because they grow older, but because they get better,” Jackson said.

But to Jason Nurton, who teaches reading at a Fort Collins middle school, it is unfair to “judge a teacher’s effectiveness on one test, on one day, when the student has absolutely no buy-in.”

Nurton concedes Colorado should reform its teacher evaluation system, but not with Senate Bill 191 — the year’s largest education reform proposal, which has pitted teachers against each other, teachers against superintendents, and the state teachers union against Capitol reformers.

Tears, rallies, ad blitzes. Admonitions, outrage and praise filled the Old Supreme Court Chambers in the Capitol last week as the Senate Education Committee heard testimony about the bill.

Teachers flooded e-mail in-boxes, converged on the statehouse and even brought in the president of the largest labor union in the nation to campaign against the legislation.

At the same time, superintendents, principals, business leaders and education reformers affirmed that the bill could help Colorado fix some of its most vexing education problems: the yawning achievement gap and endemic dropout and dismal graduation rates.

“It’s forcing all of us to examine our core beliefs,” said Harrison School District 2 Superintendent Mike Miles. “Whenever we experience a paradigm shift, it forces us to focus on our worst fears and our greatest hopes.”

Dramatic shift for educators

The legislation would revolutionize teacher and principal evaluations in Colorado, basing 50 percent of their performance on supervisors’ reviews and the other half on student growth on standardized tests and other measures. It also would change the way teachers achieve tenure and make it easier for them to lose that job protection — a controversial move that attacks a core tenet held by the teachers union.

Opponents call the legislation an unfunded mandate that places too much financial burden on cash-strapped school districts. They fear it would create a school system where educators “teach to the test” to save their jobs and one where longtime teachers are picked off without due process.

Proponents, meanwhile, say the bill is a solution to some of Colorado’s worst education problems, that focusing on effective teaching is the best way to cut the achievement gap between the races, reduce the dropout rate and boost the number of students ready for college. They also believe it will help the state win $175 million in the federal Race to the Top education grant competition.

Education reformers are hailing the bill as one of the country’s most robust reforms, and federal officials are closely watching the legislation as a barometer in the national debate over education.

Only three states — Delaware, Illinois and Tennessee — have legislated similar reforms.

The idea behind Senate Bill 191 germinated in state Sen. Michael Johnston’s mind years ago — before he was in the legislature, when he was a principal at a Mapleton high school and working on education policy for President Barack Obama’s campaign.

The main point of the “Educator Effectiveness” bill, the Denver Democrat said, is based on a growing body of research that shows the key to student success is having a great teacher in the classroom led by a great principal.

“The impact of teachers and leaders is so dramatically different than the rest of the reforms we talk about that, literally, things like class size and curriculum and professional development plans are minuscule in comparison to the impact of great teachers and leaders,” Johnston said.

But defining what makes an effective teacher, and then legislating it, has proved to be contentious, evidenced by standing-room-only crowds at the Capitol last week packed with teachers wearing “Not so fast!” stickers in opposition to the bill.

“Everyone in the system agrees the evaluation process is broken,” Johnston said. “But, like health care, there is disagreement on how to fix it.”

Defining a good teacher

A national report released last year by The New Teacher Project found that less than 1 percent of U.S. teachers receive “unsatisfactory” ratings, even in schools where students fail to meet basic academic standards year after year.

Over a three-year period, just 32 unsatisfactory ratings were given out of 2,387 evaluations of tenured Denver Public Schools teachers.

New evaluations suggested by Johnston’s bill would be less subjective, with half of the appraisals tied to how much students improve every year. Veteran teachers would be evaluated annually, instead of every three years.

His bill would make law the recommendations of Gov. Bill Ritter’s Council on Educator Effectiveness, which is trying to define what makes an effective teacher and is tasked with creating a fair evaluation system.

But teachers unions see the student growth component as relying too heavily on tests — specifically, the Colorado Student Assessment Program. CSAP every year tests third- through 10th-graders in math, writing and reading. Fifth-, eighth- and 10th-graders also take the science test.

Half of Colorado teachers do not teach subjects or grade levels covered by CSAP, which means new assessments must be created.

Johnston offered an amendment that said interim tests, student work and statewide assessments also could be considered. He also says tests to evaluate non-CSAP subjects could be built or bought by the state. The union says that will cost too much money.

Johnston said Race to the Top money could help pay for those new tests. If the state doesn’t win the federal grant, the state would use free assessments from across the country — “of which there are significant numbers,” he said.

Some teachers are worried that linking evaluations to student growth is unfair to those in the most-challenging schools or with students who are still learning English, have special needs or miss weeks of classroom time.

Liz Frank is a kindergarten/first-grade teacher at College View Elementary in Denver. Her class is constantly in flux, growing and shrinking as students move in and out.

This year, every student in her class was below grade level. Students come and go every week. Two siblings in her class left for three months to visit their father in Mexico.

“The end-of-the-year test scores will show that I did not do my job,” Frank wrote in an e-mail. “Most of my students are second-language learners. They get little or no support from home. Many of their parents are in jail or members of gangs. These are not excuses but facts.”

However, Johnston said neither his bill nor the governor’s council asks teachers to bring every student to proficiency. The measurement will be on whether the students grew academically while in a teacher’s class.

Also, an amendment to the legislation would allow districts to rate student growth differently in certain classrooms, including ones where students are highly mobile or where 95 percent of kids meet the definition of “high-risk.” The exception also would apply to special-education classes.

Tenure a hot-button issue

The rift the bill has created was obvious last week as Mapleton elementary schoolteacher Kathleen Boyd testified at the Capitol, saying it was time Colorado found a way to get rid of “burned-out, tired and ineffective” teachers.

“I don’t need a law that guarantees me a job, and other teachers don’t either,” the new teacher said, a room full of teachers behind her, some of them shaking their heads during her testimony to the Senate Education Committee. “I can take care of that on my own.”

The aspect of Johnston’s bill that has sparked a stormy backlash from the state’s largest teachers union is how it affects teacher tenure.

Today, teachers who complete three years of satisfactory teaching achieve what is essentially “tenure,” meaning due-process hearings are required to remove them.

Some say that due-process system makes it nearly impossible to dismiss a veteran teacher for poor performance and costs the districts too much money.

Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, said El Paso County districts have been known to spend upward of $60,000 a year trying to remove a tenured teacher. In 2007-08, Denver Public Schools fired four tenured teachers for poor performance — the most in a decade.

Jefferson County Public Schools Superintendent Cindy Stevenson said that in eight years she has tried to dismiss five teachers for poor performance or misconduct. All but two won their jobs back under the due-process system.

Johnston’s legislation would grant nonprobationary status to teachers only after they are deemed “effective” over three years.

Those teachers who already achieved tenure could lose it if found “ineffective” for two consecutive years. However, they would have the right to appeal the rating to their superintendent.

To earn back their nonprobationary status, they must build up three consecutive years of “effective” evaluations.

Once a teacher loses tenure, the district could fire him or her at will after one year on probationary status.

“What we are saying is this is an honor that our great teachers earn,” Johnston said. “They have it because they earned it, and they keep it because they are continuing to demonstrate effectiveness.”

Veteran teachers could be fired much like a beginning teacher — without the legal right to a hearing from an impartial arbiter, said Julie Whitacre, a lobbyist for the Colorado Education Association, which represents 40,000 educators.

“This structure is far different from a lifetime guarantee of a job portrayed by the media,” Whitacre said. “The ability to remove ineffective teachers from the classroom exists under current Colorado law.”

No research says removing due-process rights for teachers will improve student achievement, she said. What has been proved to work is “supporting teachers through coaching, mentoring and meaningful, ongoing professional development,” she said.

The money angle

The bill’s critics once again are hammering on an oft-cited criticism of education reform: It’s a mandate with little money attached.

They point out a perceived hypocrisy — lawmakers asking school districts to create new evaluation systems that some believe could cost up to $75 million a year, while at the same time telling them to trim administrative budgets.

The bill comes as Colorado school districts are cutting bus routes, canceling elective classes and even laying off teachers and assistant principals. Colorado slashed next year’s education budget by $260 million, with each district taking a 5 percent to 6 percent hit.

Schools are “underfunded and starving,” argued Tony Salazar, CEA’s executive director, who asked lawmakers whether districts should take away the money from classrooms to develop the new system.

Johnston’s suggestion that the reform will be supported through “gifts, grants and donations” has critics rolling their eyes and using words like “asinine.”

“When we got this version of the bill, we were laughing, but it’s very sad,” said Deborah Fallin, CEA spokeswoman.

Principals, who typically supervise about 20 teachers, often don’t have time to evaluate staff every three years, as required by current law, she said. Johnston’s legislation would require yearly evaluations.

The union also slams the bill for its timing of deploying a new evaluation system while the state is in the middle of a major overhaul of its standardized testing protocols.

In December, the State Board of Education approved 13 new content standards that state officials say will help K-12 students become ready for college or careers after high school.

New tests to replace CSAP based on the new standards are being developed. State law passed in 2008 says the new assessments should be in place by the 2011-12 school year — except the legislature is now saying the deadline may have to be delayed because of lack of funding.

The CEA says developing the new student assessments is expected to cost upward of $80 million.

“We are going to build all these decisions on a faulty statewide assessment?” Fallin said. “It’s just enormously, financially ridiculous. It is education abuse.”

However, Colorado is among states applying for $350 million being offered by the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top Assessment Program available to states to develop the “next generation of high-quality assessments.”

Several superintendents, though, said the expense of new evaluation systems has been exaggerated.

“I am asking for zero dollars, not 1 cent,” Aurora Superintendent John Barry told senators as he testified in support of the bill. “It is the time. It is the place. It is the right thing to do for our students.”

Mapleton Superintendent Charlotte Ciancio asked, “What can possibly be more expensive than an ineffective teacher?”

Johnston cites the fiscal note attached to his bill that says state costs would be $240,000 a year — paying for three employees to help districts develop new evaluations. The fiscal note, however, doesn’t include the costs to districts.

For his part, Johnston believes the new system will help Colorado’s chances of winning the second round of the Race to the Top grant competition.

The state lost in the first round — finishing 14th out of 16 states and the District of Columbia. Many blamed Colorado’s application for its weak section on how it plans to improve teachers.

When teachers can’t find jobs

The union also detests a section of the legislation that would overhaul a policy on how displaced veteran teachers who cannot find a job are redistributed when their schools shut down or enrollment drops and fewer teachers are needed.

Under current law, teachers who cannot find a new position in their districts before the school year must be assigned to another school — even when the principal doesn’t want the teacher and the teacher doesn’t want to work there. Some call it “direct” or “forced placement.”

Johnston’s bill would require “mutual consent” — a teacher would not land a job at another school unless the teacher and principal agreed. Displaced teachers who do not secure a position would be taken off the payroll after two school years.

This section of the bill would have the biggest impact on DPS, which has closed schools because of declining enrollment.

The district placed about 100 teachers each of the past two years, and many of them ended up in the poorest, most-challenging schools against their will, said DPS Superintendent Tom Boasberg.

It makes sense to let teachers find the job they want, and if they can’t after two years, to leave, Boasberg said. DPS hired about 1,000 new teachers over the past two years, he said.

The union, though, says this policy targets teachers who are unfairly stigmatized when their school shuts down or when the district faces teacher cutbacks.

Denver East High School math teacher Lawrence Garcia said that happened to him a few years ago, after he lost his job when North High reorganized. It took six interviews to land a new job. He believes the experience blacklisted him.

“You are going to have a target on you, and no one is going to hire you,” Garcia said.

Johnston’s bill also would remove a section of law that forces districts to adhere to the seniority rule when laying off teachers during a financial downturn — laying off the most junior teachers first. The bill says administrators could base their decisions on teacher effectiveness, not seniority.

Senate Bill 191, co-sponsored by Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, has a long way to go at the Capitol. Last week it passed 7-1 in the Senate Education Committee after two days of testimony.

It’s on its way to the full Senate, and if it survives, to the House. Its supporters are hoping for buy-in from teachers in the end.

“These issues about how we retain our best teachers and ensure we have a high-quality teacher in every classroom are ones of absolute shared concern among teachers and district leaders, and I’m hopeful that we will get to legislation that everybody will support,” DPS’s Boasberg said.

Jeremy P. Meyer: 303-954-1367 or [email protected] [email protected]

---

Highlights of Senate Bill 191

Senate Sponsors: Michael Johnston, D-Denver, Nancy Spence, R-Centennial

•Teachers and principals are evaluated each year, 50 percent based on supervisors’ reviews and 50 percent on student academic growth based on assessment tests and other measures.

•Teachers can earn nonprobationary status after three consecutive years of demonstrated effectiveness.

•Teachers can lose nonprobationary status after two consecutive years of ineffective reviews, returning to probationary status. Those teachers may appeal those reviews to their superintendents. Teachers on probation have one-year contracts and may be fired at will after that.

•Principals get reviewed every year by their supervisors.

•Highly effective teachers and principals can climb “career ladders” to additional pay and responsibility. Lesson plans and advice from the state’s top teachers would be online and available to other educators.

•Displaced tenured teachers who cannot land a new position will have two years to find another job within the district. After that period, if they cannot find employment, they will be removed from the payroll and placed on unpaid leave.