From the Examiner.com
by Jennie Smith
I have watched the evolution of what is now Senate Bill 736 from the monstrosity described in my last article on the subject to the present, and I will admit that there have been changes made, mostly positive ones...at first glance.
The reality, however, is that most of what educators (and many parents) loathed about last year's Senate Bill 6 is still present in SB 736...just a bit more cleverly veiled.
When I read last week the most recent version of the bill, my first reaction was pleasant surprise to find some of the more odious features conspicuously absent, and certain red-flag language modified. For instance, I noticed that the words "Professional Performance Contract" had been changed to "Professional Service Contract" (the term for the contract we currently hold). Intrigued, I read further and scrutinized the details to see if we were indeed still talking about a Professional Service Contract, like the one I have now, or if it was just putting the old name on the new product.
(For the sake of clarification, the language in the earlier version of the bill allowed teachers currently holding a Professional Service Contract, or PSC--which simply means that teachers have an expectation of continued employment and a right to due process--to "opt out" of the annual contract with its Performance Salary Schedule and choose a "Professional Performance Contract," in which teachers would be awarded a contract of three years, after which they could be renewed or non-renewed, with or without cause. They could also be terminated for a number of reasons, including test scores, during their three-year contract. Essentially, the only difference between the Professional Performance Contract and their annual performance contract was that those choosing the former would be ineligible for performance bonuses.)
To my understanding, according to the newest version of the bill, only new hires after July 1, 2011, would be necessarily subject to the annual contract. Those of us who currently hold a PSC would be "grandfathered in" and allowed to keep it. (Personally, I do not know a single teacher who would trade his or her PSC for an annual performance contract where his or her employment was dependent upon the results of students on a standardized test.) However, the contract is still vulnerable: if he is to transfer to another district, he would lose eligibility for that PSC. Same scenario if he were laid off and rehired. If the anti-union legislation in the works effectively decertified unions and nullified existing contracts, entire districts could find themselves without the choice supposedly built into the legislation. Further, the bill's sponsor, state senator Stephen Wise (R-Jacksonville) testified during committee meetings that teachers on a PSC could be terminated for student test scores during their contract, as 50% of their evaluation would be based on test scores.
If Professional Service Contracts are indeed the devil Florida Republicans claim they are, and would in effect be phased out through the implementation of SB 736, then why even allow those of currently holding PSCs to be grandfathered in? I would argue that it is to keep teachers quiet and complacent. If most teachers perceive that their own employment is not threatened by the new legislation, they will be less likely to create the uproar of last year over SB 6 or resort to more drastic measures such as sick-outs or strikes.
While I will admit that I at first breathed a sigh of relief to see that I would be able to keep my contract, upon reflection I feel that this bill is just as dangerous as SB 6, if not even more so, in part because of its subtlety--it is designed to provide a false sense of security.
But I will be more specific, and ennumerate the respects in which this legislation is bad news for public education in Florida.
Where's the money?
Let's just assume for a moment that we agreed with the main tenets of the legislation, found its evaluation system and compensation system fair and equitable to teachers, schools, districts and students, and believed that its implementation would improve education in Florida. (Obviously this is not the case, but we shall suspend disbelief for a second.)
Where is the money?
The new governor's proposed budget would reduce per-pupil spending by as much as $708. The overall loss to public education in Florida is $3.3 billion--72% of the proposed budget cuts, while education only comprises 29% of the overall state budget. Rick Scott and other Republicans have argued that these are not really "cuts" since a large part of the shortfall is a result of the end of ARRA (a.k.a. stimulus) funds, which were not there before. However, the ARRA funding filled a gap left by budget cuts that occurred before and at the time of the release of the stimulus funding--so the failure to replace those funds still constitutes a cut, even if it means only that we are seeing the results of an earlier cut with a couple years' delay.
Nowhere in the SB 736 legislation is there an obligation (or even an expectation) for the state to pay for the creation, implementation, scoring, reporting or storing of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new standardized tests that would necessarily be created by the enactment of the bill. (In order to evaluate teachers by test scores, they would need test scores for every subject; currently the FCAT only tests reading, math, writing and science.) This means a lot of new tests will be needed. Tests are expensive and divert precious resources away from the classroom--from books, technology, building maintenance and, yes, teacher's salaries. When the Miami-Dade County school district is facing up to $214 million in lost funding, and already anticipating layoffs, programs cuts and salary cuts, where should they find the money to create, administer, score, analyze and report thousands of new end-of-course exams? By packing more kids into classrooms, in violation of the Class Size Amendment (and common sense)? By cutting arts, music, vocational and physical education programs? By allowing outdated schools to crumble and mildew? Remind me how this will benefit the children taking those tests to determine their teacher's income and employment?
Moreover, nowhere in SB 736 is it said how the performance bonuses will be funded. Indeed, no funding is allotted for them. This means that current salaries--already below the national average, especially considering the cost of living in South Florida--will stagnate, at best, or be cut, in order to leave money for the bonuses. It does not make sense to cut what are already deficient salaries in order to allow some teachers to be given bigger bonuses. Once the base salary is adequate to account for the cost of living differential, then we can talk about merit bonuses. Until then, it will only weaken incentive for anyone to choose to be an educator in the state of Florida.
Teachers are not interested in working on commission, and those whose primary motivation is cashing in are arguably not those best suited for the teaching profession.
Education is not a field that attracts the salesman type of person interested in a commission job. Those who choose to become teachers do so because they want to touch lives and help children learn, grow and become responsible citizens; they want to know that, regardless how their students do on a test they did not write and indeed did not even see, they will be paid enough to live comfortably if not extravagantly.
And let us be clear: when a car salesman sells a car, he is selling it to someone who was interested enough in buying a new car to come to the dealership and have a look around. When we teach students, we are as often as not teaching kids who would rather be somewhere, anywhere else, doing something, anything else, and who see what we are teaching them as totally irrelevant and without any substantive value, especially compared to boyfriends/girlfriends, their new iPhones, video games, Facebook, etc. Yes, a good teacher can successfully convince a majority of his or her students, at least for an hour at a time, that what he or she is teaching is important enough to be paid attention to. But that doesn't mean the student will concentrate on that material once he is out of the classroom. It doesn't mean he will choose to do homework or study for a test when he is surrounded by friends, technology, other influences, interests and sometimes other basic needs, particularly when there is no parent pushing him to do it. As a frustrated teacher blogger I read very accurately put it: "It’s not like dropping into a desert and giving people water…where they are all grateful and think you are awesome. It’s more like giving cough medicine to a hysterical three-year old with a fever and diarrhea; they’ll fight it to the death and hate you afterward." Obviously this is a bit exaggerated in many cases, but nonetheless, it is a basic truth that we are competing against a million other things for children's attention and we often lose, especially when the motivation is not there at home.
A good educator embraces the challenge of getting and keeping distracted children's attention, convincing them that the material is useful and relevant to their lives, and, perhaps more importantly, of engaging them on a personal level and helping instill in them the intrinsic value of education. But we know full well that we will not be successful in that mission with every single child. It doesn't mean we don't try; it just means that we are realistic and we know that, just as the car salesman will sell a car to perhaps only one out of every thirty prospective buyers who walks onto the lot, we will not manage to convince every single child who walks into our classroom that what we are teaching is worth knowing, or even that education is worth anything. But we still try.
The more difficult the circumstances facing the students we teach, the harder it is to convince them.
It can be discouraging, but for those of us with the vocation, we take heart in those who do end up caring. Depending on the school we work in and the student population we work with, we may end up with a lot of those or just one or two a year. Either way, they are the ones who keep us going, keep us coming in to work every day at least feigning positivity when we don't feel it (usually because of what's coming down on us from above), keep us motivated to keep doing what we do even when it feels like we're beating our heads against a brick wall.
Even those kids we do reach may fail a standardized test miserably, despite our efforts and despite their own, for any number of reasons--starting out incredibly far behind, being a poor test-taker, having mitigating circumstances at the moment of testing, etc., etc. Add to that the group of kids who do not care whatsoever--which will be a larger group the tougher the neighborhood--and you could end up with a really great teacher who works really hard and exceeds all expectations (and undoubtedly puts in a lot of unpaid time outside the classroom) who gets denied a bonus--or, more dangerously, loses his job--primarily because he chose to work with underprivileged kids.
There is nothing in this legislation to encourage anyone to go into teaching...those looking for a spectacular payday will find a thousand better options (and I would argue that anyone who views children as cash cows should not be in front of a classroom in the first place), and those with a true vocation, a true desire to educate and help kids grow and help shape a future generation of responsible citizens, will be scared away by the prospect of effectively being punished (by lower pay and non-renewal) for working with the kids whose "learning gains" will be the hardest to predict.
SB 736 has the exact same shortcomings in this respect as SB 6 did. Even when the legislation calls for paying more to those who teach in Title I (high-poverty) schools, this does not offset the fear of losing one's job due to poor student test scores. Only someone who intends to teach for a very short period of time--perhaps one, two, three years--would be willing to take that risk. Anyone planning on making a career of teaching will lean toward the option of a "safer" school--i.e., a more affluent school. Perhaps they won't receive the Title I bonus, but they have a better chance of keeping their job.
Indeed, where merit pay has been tried in American public schools it has not produced the desired results. In Hillsborough County, 97% of teachers receiving merit bonuses the first year worked in affluent schools; only 3% worked in low-income schools. A recent Vanderbilt University study found that merit pay did not affect student achievement; teachers receiving up to $15,000 bonuses produced the same results as teachers not receiving the bonuses, and the general feeling among bonus-recipients and non-recipients was that the recipients were no more effective than the non-recipients.
If merit pay is so effective, shouldn't we hold police accountable for the level of crime in a neighborhood? If the number of violent crimes stays low or decreases, they should get a raise. Those working in zones where the violent crime rate stays high or increases should be fired. Right? Only they know better...they know if they were to do that, they would have no one left to patrol the rough parts of town. It is already hard enough to find people willing to put their lives on the line every day to be police, especially in high-crime areas. If they knew they could be fired for the crime rate not going down, would they be willing to do that job? Especially when the pay was inferior to most other jobs they were qualified for, and the benefits they had had were being eroded to fill state budget deficits? Of course not. They would only apply for positions in Coral Gables, or they would choose another career.
Perhaps teachers in high-poverty schools do not face the same physical risks on a daily basis that beat cops do, but the analogy works nonetheless. Nothing in the formula reassures the one who wants to make a difference in a bleighted area. And if the "performance pay" component were modified so that police were paid, for example, by how many arrests they made, one could reasonably expect a surge in questionable arrests...and a surge in frustrated, burned-out cops.
Teacher of the Year: Fired?
Despite the bill's claim to want to reward outstanding teachers, it would still allow those same outstanding teachers to be fired for any or no reason. With the annual contracts, a teacher who received "highly effective" evaluations for years could still be let go without cause at the end of a school year.
This is one of the primary concerns of teachers regarding this legislation, and it is a concern that is far too often met with, "Well, in the private sector, an employee can get fired without cause, too. That's just the way it is." But we're not talking about the private sector; we're talking about taxpayers' money, including the money of the teacher being fired without cause. Should we not hold public institutions to a higher standard? Private corporations are given more freedoms in the U.S. than ordinary citizens are; of course they can make their own rules and fire indiscriminately, especially in ultraconservative, anti-labor states like Florida. Does that make it right? Does that mean that we should import that practice into the public sector, which is paid for not with private money and sales of a good or service, but with the taxes of the very people affected by those rules?
As a teacher, I do not feel I have any kind of "God-given right" to my job. However, I do feel that as long as I am doing my job effectively, and am not the lowest on the totem pole if layoffs become necessary (or required), a principal should not be able to fire me without giving a (very good) reason that can be proven. Some principals, like my current one, are very good, fair people who see the big picture. But many others are not; many are micromanaging, authoritarian and take personal offense to anyone who dares speak up when he sees that something is not working. Just because if, in the private sector, this were a boss being paid with private dollars, he could fire anyone for any reason or no reason at all, does not mean that when taxpayer dollars are involved the same injustice should be permitted.
The current system does not, as opponents argue, provide tenure to teachers, at least not in Miami-Dade County. There is a ninety-day procedure in place to remove incompetent teachers from the classroom. If it is not being done, it is because administration is not doing it; and there are several reasons why this can happen. 1) Many administrators are unwilling to do the observations and follow the procedures to remove the ineffective teachers. 2) Sometimes administrators need those ineffective teachers to fill other roles in the school (namely, to coach sports), and are therefore very reluctant to push an incompetency case on them. 3) Far too often, there is simply no one better qualified to fill the position. If the principal removes that teacher, he will have to find a replacement, hopefully better than the last; the class cannot be left unattended; and especially in critical shortage areas, or highly specialized content areas, it can be a lengthy process to find someone well-qualified to teach. Quite simply, if an administrator does not feel that he has a pool of highly qualified candidates to choose from to replace an ineffective teacher, he is unlikely to follow through with terminating one.
There is a recession right now, so the pool of candidates is undoubtedly larger than it would be in flush times; but it does not mean that there is an abundance of candidates who are experienced enough or well-trained enough in pedagogy to be immediately effective teachers. Teaching is part art, part science; generally people love it or hate it; it also requires a certain amount of training (as a beginner) and a certain amount of experience before anyone can really become a good teacher, much less a great teacher. Once the economy recovers, even without the education reform legislation being pushed through at the moment, it is unlikely that we will see an abundance of highly qualified, well-trained (or experienced) prospective teachers. Those who would teach, who want to live in Florida, will choose other careers; and those who must teach, but are not particularly attached to Florida, will go teach in states that respect their teachers and pay them fairly. If the legislation passes as is, and is fully implemented, we can expect to see this pool of talent shrink even further, back to having real teacher shortages--as there were when I moved here five years ago--where schools basically have to accept what they can get, and will be hesitant to remove ineffective ones, for lack of anyone better to fill their positions.
But one cannot help but cynically wonder if this is not, ultimately, the politicians' deepest wish. High turnover of teachers means fewer teachers using maternity leave, costly health insurance and pensions. And making all teachers at-will employees means they will work in such fear for their jobs that they will not question what they are told to do, even when they know it is not good for children, and they will not fight for their salary, benefits or pension. It will effectively dissolve unions, gradually phasing them out; once a majority of teachers are on annual contracts, where they have no right to due process, and where their compensation is determined by student test scores, they will have no more need or use for a union to collectively bargain their salaries. And once there are no more unions, there will be no one making demands for salary or benefits or pension; there will be no one advocating for the funding of public education, advocating against policies that are bad for children, or helping elect officials who will prioritize public education. In other words, it will save the state money. And if it saves them money (money they would like to put into corporate tax cuts, or into the hands of their cronies running private schools and charter schools) then to hell with the children who are being robbed of a quality education through their refusal to respect the teaching profession.
Continue reading on Examiner.com: 2+2=5...SB 736 doesn't add up. - Miami Dade County Education Policy | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/dade-county-education-policy-in-miami/sb-736-sb-6-nip-tuck#ixzz1EQmh7jUR
Showing posts with label senate bill 6. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senate bill 6. Show all posts
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Teacher hating bill picks up steam
This was a done deal the second Scott was elected despite Wise's claims of inclusveness. -cpg
From the St. Petersbug Times Gradebook
by Jeff Solocheck
The Senate's version of legislation to change the way Florida schoolteachers are paid, evaluated, contracted and certified won approval from another committee Tuesday morning.
After nearly two hours of discussion and testimony, much of it similar to what we heard a week ago at the Pre-K-12 Committee, the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education Pre-K-12 Appropriations voted out SB 736 on an 8-1 vote, with only Republican Paula Dockery opposed.
Members praised sponsor Steve Wise, R-Jacksonville, for crafting a better bill than last year's SB 6 and for being more inclusive in writing it. But some also cautioned that the bill needs more work before they're willing to back it on the floor.
"The current way it is today is unacceptable for Florida public education," said Sen. Bill Montford, a Tallahassee Democrat who also is head of the state's superintendents organization. He argued that the bill takes away teachers' confidence that they will have jobs regardless of their performance, and said it relied on evaluations that don't even exist.
"A tremendous amount of change is coming to Florida K-12. It's long overdue," Montford said. "I believe we as a Legislature can do better."
Even Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, suggested that improvements are necessary. But she suggested that the kinks could be worked out over time, saying that this legislation is "the next major logical step in education reform," building upon the state's A-Plus system.
Questions remain over how to pay for raises, for instance, and how the bill jibes with other endeavors such as Race to the Top. And the House version has yet to emerge.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/content/sb-736-picks-another-committee-recommendation
From the St. Petersbug Times Gradebook
by Jeff Solocheck
The Senate's version of legislation to change the way Florida schoolteachers are paid, evaluated, contracted and certified won approval from another committee Tuesday morning.
After nearly two hours of discussion and testimony, much of it similar to what we heard a week ago at the Pre-K-12 Committee, the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education Pre-K-12 Appropriations voted out SB 736 on an 8-1 vote, with only Republican Paula Dockery opposed.
Members praised sponsor Steve Wise, R-Jacksonville, for crafting a better bill than last year's SB 6 and for being more inclusive in writing it. But some also cautioned that the bill needs more work before they're willing to back it on the floor.
"The current way it is today is unacceptable for Florida public education," said Sen. Bill Montford, a Tallahassee Democrat who also is head of the state's superintendents organization. He argued that the bill takes away teachers' confidence that they will have jobs regardless of their performance, and said it relied on evaluations that don't even exist.
"A tremendous amount of change is coming to Florida K-12. It's long overdue," Montford said. "I believe we as a Legislature can do better."
Even Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, suggested that improvements are necessary. But she suggested that the kinks could be worked out over time, saying that this legislation is "the next major logical step in education reform," building upon the state's A-Plus system.
Questions remain over how to pay for raises, for instance, and how the bill jibes with other endeavors such as Race to the Top. And the House version has yet to emerge.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/content/sb-736-picks-another-committee-recommendation
Monday, February 7, 2011
John Thrasher strikes again
from Tampa Bay.coms gradebook
by Jeff Solochek
Florida teachers union decries new legislation as 'retribution'
Florida state Sen. John Thrasher, the Jacksonville Republican who sponsored last year's Senate Bill 6, filed a bill today that would ban payroll deductions that would be used for political activity, including contributions to candidates and tax-exempt organizations.
Employees would be able to request a refund of union dues used for political activity, unless that employee has specifically authorized such a use of the money. The bill also would prevent public employers from collecting dues of employee organizations from payroll.
The Florida Education Association quickly attacked the legislation.
"These actions are nothing more than retribution directed at FEA and other labor organizations for using our democratic right to support or oppose legislation in Florida, particularly last year’s SB 6," FEA president Andy Ford said in a release. "Of course, we will oppose this measure, which is aimed at silencing our members and punishing them for opposing proposals supported by legislative leaders."
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/content/florida-teachers-union-decries-new-legislation-retribution
by Jeff Solochek
Florida teachers union decries new legislation as 'retribution'
Florida state Sen. John Thrasher, the Jacksonville Republican who sponsored last year's Senate Bill 6, filed a bill today that would ban payroll deductions that would be used for political activity, including contributions to candidates and tax-exempt organizations.
Employees would be able to request a refund of union dues used for political activity, unless that employee has specifically authorized such a use of the money. The bill also would prevent public employers from collecting dues of employee organizations from payroll.
The Florida Education Association quickly attacked the legislation.
"These actions are nothing more than retribution directed at FEA and other labor organizations for using our democratic right to support or oppose legislation in Florida, particularly last year’s SB 6," FEA president Andy Ford said in a release. "Of course, we will oppose this measure, which is aimed at silencing our members and punishing them for opposing proposals supported by legislative leaders."
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/content/florida-teachers-union-decries-new-legislation-retribution
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
The Cousin of Senate Bill 6
From the Sherman Dorn Blog
by Sherman Dorn
Florida state Senator Wise has filed Senate Bill 736, the first bill to be filed as a successor to last year's vetoed Senate Bill 6. At a quick run-through, it has performance pay and some state-level evaluation requirements, both of which are more flexible than the language in last year's Senate Bill 6 and, at least for the evaluation part, has an important section that sunsets in a few years and thus will force the legislature to revisit the issue (a very healthy thing). It eliminates continuing contracts for new hires, which is similar to SB 6 and does not include the three-year contracts that's in the bill language floated over the past few months by Patricia Levesque. It is also mostly restricted to those issues, unlike the sprawling SB 6.
For the past few months, I'd been talking with colleagues and friends about expecting Son of Senate Bill 6. It's not that close–more like Cousin of SB 6. Of course, it may well change in committee hearings, on the floor, or in negotiations with the Florida House over whatever bill the lower chamber approves. So we may well have Gene-Spliced Relative of SB 6 by the time the legislative session is done.
http://shermandorn.com/wordpress/?p=3166
by Sherman Dorn
Florida state Senator Wise has filed Senate Bill 736, the first bill to be filed as a successor to last year's vetoed Senate Bill 6. At a quick run-through, it has performance pay and some state-level evaluation requirements, both of which are more flexible than the language in last year's Senate Bill 6 and, at least for the evaluation part, has an important section that sunsets in a few years and thus will force the legislature to revisit the issue (a very healthy thing). It eliminates continuing contracts for new hires, which is similar to SB 6 and does not include the three-year contracts that's in the bill language floated over the past few months by Patricia Levesque. It is also mostly restricted to those issues, unlike the sprawling SB 6.
For the past few months, I'd been talking with colleagues and friends about expecting Son of Senate Bill 6. It's not that close–more like Cousin of SB 6. Of course, it may well change in committee hearings, on the floor, or in negotiations with the Florida House over whatever bill the lower chamber approves. So we may well have Gene-Spliced Relative of SB 6 by the time the legislative session is done.
http://shermandorn.com/wordpress/?p=3166
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Bill Proctor, chairman of the Florida House K-20 Education Committee, talks education
I am not optimistc we will see anything but union busting and teacher bashing reforms. -cpg
From TampaBay.coms gradebook
by Jeff Solocheck
The Florida Legislature renewed its discussion on teacher quality and performance pay issues this past week, with several hearings in both the Senate and the House. The question hasn't been whether a revamped version of last year's vetoed Senate Bill 6 will come up this year, but rather what the details will be. The Senate opened the doors to anyone who wanted to come offer ideas, with no language on the table, while the House started its conversation with a detailed proposal from Jeb Bush's Foundation for a Better Florida. House K-20 Committee chairman Bill Proctor, R-St. Augustine, spoke with reporter Jeff Solochek about his expectations of this year's effort to push for change to the ways teachers are contracted, paid, evaluated and certified.
I'm wondering where you see this headed now. There's definitely going to be a bill, it looks like, and I want to know how closely the two houses are working on it and how much input you are seeking from outside groups.
Well I guess two things. No. 1, most of the committee hearings that I am acquainted with on education in the House have been predominantly testimony from representatives of the various segments of the education system. We really haven't had any testimony, any hearings dealing specifically with bills, that I am aware of. ...
I guess I am thinking when you had at the subcommittee Patricia Levesque making a presentation on the recommendations she had from the Foundation (for a Better Florida).
Okay. All right. I saw when Patricia made those. But as far as I know no one has filed a bill with the recommendations. I am sure they will be considered. I've met with Patricia on several occasions just to try to understand the proposals they are putting forth. But those are not in any type of bill form now and I don't know they will be.
Do you think there is more of an opportunity for people to have a meaningful participation in this discussion this year than last year? Because last year a lot of people felt shut out.
I think there has been a considerable amount. Of course the commissioner and his people have had meetings with the superintendents. They have had meetings with the teachers unions. I met with Sen. Wise earlier this morning. He has gone to a number of teacher meetings. But basically the SB 6 that we had last year, there were two main parts to it. One of them had to do with what we are calling teacher tenure. It's really service contracts, professional service contracts. And the other one had to do with performance pay. There has been widespread discussion of those two topics.
Are those things for sure going to happen this year?
I can't tell you anything for sure. I can tell you I don't think there's any question that we in the House will be looking at those topics.
What do you envision? What kinds of things do you think are important in that legislation? What does the House want?
Well, to say what the House wants, I don't know that I'm qualified. But I can tell you where I think we're heading, to some extent. But you've got to realize of course I've got to be consistent with what the leadership is looking for, what the governor's office is looking for. And we've got to be compatible with what the Senate is looking for. So I could tell you what I think is going to be the main frame of those issues. But it doesn't mean that's going to come out that way at the end of the day.
I want to know the way you describe it.
I think you're going to find an approach to teacher employment that will not be a tenure system. Now, will there be a probationary time? Will there be one year contracts? Three year contracts? All of that is up for discussion. But I do believe there will be an adjustment of the tenure system as we now know it.
Performance pay, I can only say at this moment it is very likely that how we come out will be fairly consistent with what the commissioner and others have negotiated with the federal government in the Race to the Top.
Are you concerned that there will be another outburst by teachers who are angry with what's going on that will stop things or make it more difficult to accomplish?
Hmmmm. Well, I don't speculate on what others might do. But I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue that there hasn't been widespread consultation with others on this issue, including teachers and the teachers union. My understanding was, they may not be in complete accord on tenure but I think they've reached some common ground on performance pay.
I know some districts are asking that you just do what Race to the Top says and just let it be a pilot program until you can see what works. Is that an idea that holds some water?
I have not heard that. I met with a group of superintendents and we had a pretty good discussion of the two topics along with several others. But I have not heard that as being a pilot program. I think we are beyond the pilot program time. I think we have got too many districts involved in Race to the Top. ... There was a relatively small number that didn't sign on in the final analysis. But it's like anything else. You're not going to please everybody. If we can come to agreement with the majority that's probably the best we can do. But I do believe that something definitely akin to what the Department of Education came up with -- I should say likely, I shouldn't say definitely -- in their Race to the Top program is where we'll start and it may be where we end up.
Do you think the collective bargaining rules and laws will stand in the way at all?
It's hard to say until you see how the bill is written in the final analysis if you would anticipate any conflict between the two. I would hope not. But I really don't know why it should. I think most of what you bargain for is still open for bargaining. But I think how people are paid and ... if we're talking about pay for performance to say we are going to pay for performance, I don't know that's a violation of any union collective bargaining standards. And I don't know that tenure is sacrosanct within the bargaining process. I don't know how many professions or organizations bargain away lifetime employment.
What about the issue of testing. That's another thing I've heard superintendents touch on, that they think kids are tested too much already. Do you think there's a way to do this without putting more testing on kids?
Well, I don't know. I don't know that I necessarily agree with the notion that there is too much testing already. Unless schools have changed dramatically since I went to one and I taught in one, we generally had tests at the end of each week. And we had tests at the end of each unit. The question is probably, are we going to have some sort of standardized tests as opposed to teacher-made tests. And I think you will see more. But a test is a test. If you're going to have a test at the end of each unit, I don't think it makes a world of difference if you're going to have a standardized test on that unit or if it's a teacher-made test. As long as the test relates to the curriculum.
Okay. What's the time frame going to be for all this? Is it going to be something that happens fast? Or will there be lots of debate and go to the end of the session?
That's a guess. ... Next week is not a committee week. The following week is a committee week. At the end of that week we should know pretty well, we'll at least be able to roll out some ideas and see where we are in relation to where the Senate is.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/content/weekend-interview-state-rep-bill-proctor-chairman-florida-house-k-20-education-committee
From TampaBay.coms gradebook
by Jeff Solocheck
The Florida Legislature renewed its discussion on teacher quality and performance pay issues this past week, with several hearings in both the Senate and the House. The question hasn't been whether a revamped version of last year's vetoed Senate Bill 6 will come up this year, but rather what the details will be. The Senate opened the doors to anyone who wanted to come offer ideas, with no language on the table, while the House started its conversation with a detailed proposal from Jeb Bush's Foundation for a Better Florida. House K-20 Committee chairman Bill Proctor, R-St. Augustine, spoke with reporter Jeff Solochek about his expectations of this year's effort to push for change to the ways teachers are contracted, paid, evaluated and certified.
I'm wondering where you see this headed now. There's definitely going to be a bill, it looks like, and I want to know how closely the two houses are working on it and how much input you are seeking from outside groups.
Well I guess two things. No. 1, most of the committee hearings that I am acquainted with on education in the House have been predominantly testimony from representatives of the various segments of the education system. We really haven't had any testimony, any hearings dealing specifically with bills, that I am aware of. ...
I guess I am thinking when you had at the subcommittee Patricia Levesque making a presentation on the recommendations she had from the Foundation (for a Better Florida).
Okay. All right. I saw when Patricia made those. But as far as I know no one has filed a bill with the recommendations. I am sure they will be considered. I've met with Patricia on several occasions just to try to understand the proposals they are putting forth. But those are not in any type of bill form now and I don't know they will be.
Do you think there is more of an opportunity for people to have a meaningful participation in this discussion this year than last year? Because last year a lot of people felt shut out.
I think there has been a considerable amount. Of course the commissioner and his people have had meetings with the superintendents. They have had meetings with the teachers unions. I met with Sen. Wise earlier this morning. He has gone to a number of teacher meetings. But basically the SB 6 that we had last year, there were two main parts to it. One of them had to do with what we are calling teacher tenure. It's really service contracts, professional service contracts. And the other one had to do with performance pay. There has been widespread discussion of those two topics.
Are those things for sure going to happen this year?
I can't tell you anything for sure. I can tell you I don't think there's any question that we in the House will be looking at those topics.
What do you envision? What kinds of things do you think are important in that legislation? What does the House want?
Well, to say what the House wants, I don't know that I'm qualified. But I can tell you where I think we're heading, to some extent. But you've got to realize of course I've got to be consistent with what the leadership is looking for, what the governor's office is looking for. And we've got to be compatible with what the Senate is looking for. So I could tell you what I think is going to be the main frame of those issues. But it doesn't mean that's going to come out that way at the end of the day.
I want to know the way you describe it.
I think you're going to find an approach to teacher employment that will not be a tenure system. Now, will there be a probationary time? Will there be one year contracts? Three year contracts? All of that is up for discussion. But I do believe there will be an adjustment of the tenure system as we now know it.
Performance pay, I can only say at this moment it is very likely that how we come out will be fairly consistent with what the commissioner and others have negotiated with the federal government in the Race to the Top.
Are you concerned that there will be another outburst by teachers who are angry with what's going on that will stop things or make it more difficult to accomplish?
Hmmmm. Well, I don't speculate on what others might do. But I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue that there hasn't been widespread consultation with others on this issue, including teachers and the teachers union. My understanding was, they may not be in complete accord on tenure but I think they've reached some common ground on performance pay.
I know some districts are asking that you just do what Race to the Top says and just let it be a pilot program until you can see what works. Is that an idea that holds some water?
I have not heard that. I met with a group of superintendents and we had a pretty good discussion of the two topics along with several others. But I have not heard that as being a pilot program. I think we are beyond the pilot program time. I think we have got too many districts involved in Race to the Top. ... There was a relatively small number that didn't sign on in the final analysis. But it's like anything else. You're not going to please everybody. If we can come to agreement with the majority that's probably the best we can do. But I do believe that something definitely akin to what the Department of Education came up with -- I should say likely, I shouldn't say definitely -- in their Race to the Top program is where we'll start and it may be where we end up.
Do you think the collective bargaining rules and laws will stand in the way at all?
It's hard to say until you see how the bill is written in the final analysis if you would anticipate any conflict between the two. I would hope not. But I really don't know why it should. I think most of what you bargain for is still open for bargaining. But I think how people are paid and ... if we're talking about pay for performance to say we are going to pay for performance, I don't know that's a violation of any union collective bargaining standards. And I don't know that tenure is sacrosanct within the bargaining process. I don't know how many professions or organizations bargain away lifetime employment.
What about the issue of testing. That's another thing I've heard superintendents touch on, that they think kids are tested too much already. Do you think there's a way to do this without putting more testing on kids?
Well, I don't know. I don't know that I necessarily agree with the notion that there is too much testing already. Unless schools have changed dramatically since I went to one and I taught in one, we generally had tests at the end of each week. And we had tests at the end of each unit. The question is probably, are we going to have some sort of standardized tests as opposed to teacher-made tests. And I think you will see more. But a test is a test. If you're going to have a test at the end of each unit, I don't think it makes a world of difference if you're going to have a standardized test on that unit or if it's a teacher-made test. As long as the test relates to the curriculum.
Okay. What's the time frame going to be for all this? Is it going to be something that happens fast? Or will there be lots of debate and go to the end of the session?
That's a guess. ... Next week is not a committee week. The following week is a committee week. At the end of that week we should know pretty well, we'll at least be able to roll out some ideas and see where we are in relation to where the Senate is.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/content/weekend-interview-state-rep-bill-proctor-chairman-florida-house-k-20-education-committee
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Merit pay should mirror district goals
From the Florida Tribune
by Kim MacQueen
It was Teacher Merit Pay Day in the Florida Legislature Wednesday as both the House and Senate hosted members and visitors to help flesh out "Son of Senate Bill 6" as it's drafted.
The measure currently under discussion in both houses would use as a blueprint a plan developed by Foundation for Florida's Future Executive Director Patricia Levesque in concert with the Florida Association of District School Superintendents and other education officials. A more moderate version of last year's controversial SB 6, the plan calls for teacher pay to be predicated on performance and student learning gains. It also calls for annual contracts for new teachers and three-year contract renewals for veteran teachers, and stipulates that pay increases can only be given to teachers deemed "effective" or "highly effective."
Then-Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed SB 6, but Gov. Rick Scott has said he will support similar legislation.
Legislators have already heard suggestions from Florida Education Commissioner Eric Smith and others that this year's bill should closely mirror the district goals already in place under the national Race to the Top grant program. Senate Education PreK-12 Committee Chair Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville, indicated today that he's gotten the message. As it heads into bill drafting, Wise said he's calling it the "Race to the Top" bill.
Among those testifying Wednesday included Kay McGannon, advocacy director for the organization Stand for Children in Colorado, where a similar measure passed last year, as well as district representatives who warned legislators to tread with care.
"You have got to get buy-in not just from teachers, but from every employee," said Pasco Schools Superintendent Heather Fiorentino. She also asked legislators to "make sure it's fully funded" and "make sure it doesn't add additional strain" to districts in tight budget times.
A House panel heard from Smith, Florida Association of District School Superintendents representative Joy Frank, Florida Education Association President Andy Ford and others for nearly three hours of testimony on how to best craft the bill.
Ford indicated that collaboration and local solutions are keys to the success of educational reform, noting that "I don't believe we should demolish the system we have in place. It needs some fine tuning. I don't believe we should accept that our public schools are failing because I don't think that's true."
Smith pointed to comprehensive evaluation as key to making the bill work. Speaking specifically about the current process for teacher evaluations that lead to removal, he said "it's very cumbersome, frequently confrontational, lengthy and often leads to lawsuits."
"Evaluation is central to how we proceed," he said.
Originally published in the Florida Current - exclusively distributed via Lobbytools - Florida's Premiere Legislative and Media Monitoring Service.
by Kim MacQueen
It was Teacher Merit Pay Day in the Florida Legislature Wednesday as both the House and Senate hosted members and visitors to help flesh out "Son of Senate Bill 6" as it's drafted.
The measure currently under discussion in both houses would use as a blueprint a plan developed by Foundation for Florida's Future Executive Director Patricia Levesque in concert with the Florida Association of District School Superintendents and other education officials. A more moderate version of last year's controversial SB 6, the plan calls for teacher pay to be predicated on performance and student learning gains. It also calls for annual contracts for new teachers and three-year contract renewals for veteran teachers, and stipulates that pay increases can only be given to teachers deemed "effective" or "highly effective."
Then-Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed SB 6, but Gov. Rick Scott has said he will support similar legislation.
Legislators have already heard suggestions from Florida Education Commissioner Eric Smith and others that this year's bill should closely mirror the district goals already in place under the national Race to the Top grant program. Senate Education PreK-12 Committee Chair Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville, indicated today that he's gotten the message. As it heads into bill drafting, Wise said he's calling it the "Race to the Top" bill.
Among those testifying Wednesday included Kay McGannon, advocacy director for the organization Stand for Children in Colorado, where a similar measure passed last year, as well as district representatives who warned legislators to tread with care.
"You have got to get buy-in not just from teachers, but from every employee," said Pasco Schools Superintendent Heather Fiorentino. She also asked legislators to "make sure it's fully funded" and "make sure it doesn't add additional strain" to districts in tight budget times.
A House panel heard from Smith, Florida Association of District School Superintendents representative Joy Frank, Florida Education Association President Andy Ford and others for nearly three hours of testimony on how to best craft the bill.
Ford indicated that collaboration and local solutions are keys to the success of educational reform, noting that "I don't believe we should demolish the system we have in place. It needs some fine tuning. I don't believe we should accept that our public schools are failing because I don't think that's true."
Smith pointed to comprehensive evaluation as key to making the bill work. Speaking specifically about the current process for teacher evaluations that lead to removal, he said "it's very cumbersome, frequently confrontational, lengthy and often leads to lawsuits."
"Evaluation is central to how we proceed," he said.
Originally published in the Florida Current - exclusively distributed via Lobbytools - Florida's Premiere Legislative and Media Monitoring Service.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
How should Teachers be Paid
There has been great discussion about how teachers should get paid. Politicians have using the buzz words merit pay to misinform the public. People that support the notion of merit pay scream, that’s how other professions get paid, why should teachers be any different. Charlie Crist even said that’s how it is for most of us: You do well, you keep your job. I found it quite ironic that as he said that the state is facing massive unemployment and a three billion dollar deficit. Though at the same time it made me wonder how teachers would get paid if they were in other professions.
If teachers were bankers they would get paid millions no matter what type of job they do and then get bonuses on top of that. The really lucky teachers would get bailed out by the government.
If teachers worked in a sweat shop they would get paid by the pieces. Last year the state gave about 7,000 dollars per student, a class of 25 would bring in 205 thousand. Now if all this went to the teachers it would eliminate, support staff and administrative positions and teachers would have to for their overhead but since they would have a little extra be to be able to do so. As most teachers already pay for some of their supplies and many of their children’s supplies too this wouldn’t be that affected.
If teachers got paid like a politicians they would make over a hundred grand and it wouldn’t matter what type of job they do as long as they could convince at least forty percent of their parents that they were doing a good job. Forty percent is a generous estimate of how large the voting public usually is, though John Thrasher won a race once with about six percent of the possible votes.
If teachers were in the military they would get a wage based on rank, similar to how teachers now get a wage based on years of service. The military also gives additional bonuses for special or hazardous duty pay like say they were in a war zone; this is in addition to their salary which is what merit pay should be. Could you imagine how demoralizing it would be to military personnel if the Pentagon said; unless you are in a warzone we’re only going to give you half pay.
If teachers were fireman or police, perhaps the best comparison available they would get a base salary that would increase every year. They could further get bonuses based on their education. If that sounds familiar that’s because that’s exactly how teachers are paid too, at least for now anyways. What would happen if we told firemen they were going to be paid on how many fires they put out and then adjust that based on property loss? What would happen if we told the police they were going to be paid on how many arrests they made, would that make things a lot better or lot worse?
Teachers would be excited about merit pay if it was a bonus to their salary, that’s they received it in addition to their salary, after all isn’t that what a bonus is. The legislature is trying to make half of a teacher’s salary be based on merit as if most teachers don’t have plenty of merit by simply showing up. In their system there is no bonus for excellence or achievement the best of the best will simply get their full salary.
Then think about how ironic the notion of stripping away teacher’s salary enhancement for advanced degrees. Teachers tell children all the time get your education and the more you have the more you will be able to do. Well incongruously enough accept if you are a teacher because all teachers regardless of education will be paid the same, well potentially be paid the same.
No longer will years of service count for anything either. It won’t matter if you have worked for one year or thirty, and exactly what profession does that happen in again. Length of service more than anything has determined ones pay in most professions. Everyone got a raise after a year, the best performers a little more but nobody was left out.
Also where is this epidemic of bad teachers supposedly coming from, because teachers in Florida have been doing more with less for years and as a state has made appreciable gains. There are procedures in place to remove bad teachers is it the unions fault districts across the state have not used them to get rid of the few bad apples. The truth is teaching is like most professions and can be place on a bell curve. There are five percent great ones, five percent bad ones and the vast majority falls in the middle. Why does Florida think it’s okay to punish them all, especially since if they wanted to do the leg work they could get rid of the worse.
John Thrasher was quoted as saying, my daughter was a teacher and she’s not afraid of senate bill six, a clone of which will be on the horizon. The key phrase in that sentence is “was a teacher” as she has since moved on. Though she is one of the few because the vast majority of teachers whether they be religious or not, democrat or republican, new or experienced, old or young, black or white and every race in between are terrified about this bill. But as long as her daughter the former teacher is okay with it then Thrasher thinks it’s all right. How is that acceptable?
How is it how we treat teachers today is acceptable?
If teachers were bankers they would get paid millions no matter what type of job they do and then get bonuses on top of that. The really lucky teachers would get bailed out by the government.
If teachers worked in a sweat shop they would get paid by the pieces. Last year the state gave about 7,000 dollars per student, a class of 25 would bring in 205 thousand. Now if all this went to the teachers it would eliminate, support staff and administrative positions and teachers would have to for their overhead but since they would have a little extra be to be able to do so. As most teachers already pay for some of their supplies and many of their children’s supplies too this wouldn’t be that affected.
If teachers got paid like a politicians they would make over a hundred grand and it wouldn’t matter what type of job they do as long as they could convince at least forty percent of their parents that they were doing a good job. Forty percent is a generous estimate of how large the voting public usually is, though John Thrasher won a race once with about six percent of the possible votes.
If teachers were in the military they would get a wage based on rank, similar to how teachers now get a wage based on years of service. The military also gives additional bonuses for special or hazardous duty pay like say they were in a war zone; this is in addition to their salary which is what merit pay should be. Could you imagine how demoralizing it would be to military personnel if the Pentagon said; unless you are in a warzone we’re only going to give you half pay.
If teachers were fireman or police, perhaps the best comparison available they would get a base salary that would increase every year. They could further get bonuses based on their education. If that sounds familiar that’s because that’s exactly how teachers are paid too, at least for now anyways. What would happen if we told firemen they were going to be paid on how many fires they put out and then adjust that based on property loss? What would happen if we told the police they were going to be paid on how many arrests they made, would that make things a lot better or lot worse?
Teachers would be excited about merit pay if it was a bonus to their salary, that’s they received it in addition to their salary, after all isn’t that what a bonus is. The legislature is trying to make half of a teacher’s salary be based on merit as if most teachers don’t have plenty of merit by simply showing up. In their system there is no bonus for excellence or achievement the best of the best will simply get their full salary.
Then think about how ironic the notion of stripping away teacher’s salary enhancement for advanced degrees. Teachers tell children all the time get your education and the more you have the more you will be able to do. Well incongruously enough accept if you are a teacher because all teachers regardless of education will be paid the same, well potentially be paid the same.
No longer will years of service count for anything either. It won’t matter if you have worked for one year or thirty, and exactly what profession does that happen in again. Length of service more than anything has determined ones pay in most professions. Everyone got a raise after a year, the best performers a little more but nobody was left out.
Also where is this epidemic of bad teachers supposedly coming from, because teachers in Florida have been doing more with less for years and as a state has made appreciable gains. There are procedures in place to remove bad teachers is it the unions fault districts across the state have not used them to get rid of the few bad apples. The truth is teaching is like most professions and can be place on a bell curve. There are five percent great ones, five percent bad ones and the vast majority falls in the middle. Why does Florida think it’s okay to punish them all, especially since if they wanted to do the leg work they could get rid of the worse.
John Thrasher was quoted as saying, my daughter was a teacher and she’s not afraid of senate bill six, a clone of which will be on the horizon. The key phrase in that sentence is “was a teacher” as she has since moved on. Though she is one of the few because the vast majority of teachers whether they be religious or not, democrat or republican, new or experienced, old or young, black or white and every race in between are terrified about this bill. But as long as her daughter the former teacher is okay with it then Thrasher thinks it’s all right. How is that acceptable?
How is it how we treat teachers today is acceptable?
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Teachers, parents set stage for education war
By Cara Fitzpatrick, Sun Sentinel
Teachers and like-minded parents have struck first in an expected statewide battle over education changes being proposed by Gov.-elect Rick Scott's transition team.
They have held meetings and conference calls, traded information via Facebook, planned an education summit and formed bill-writing committees to create alternative legislation.
And on Tuesday, they plan to wear red to send the new governor — and the Republican-dominated legislature — a message that they support public schools.
"They're hearing nothing but Jeb Bush and his cronies — that's the whole transition team," said Rita Solnet, an education activist in Boca Raton who's involved in an effort to build a statewide coalition of parents and teachers who support traditional public education.
Bonnie Cunard, a Fort Myers teacher, said: "We've been absolutely ignored."
Scott's 20-member transition team has been led by Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of Washington, D.C., schools who fired more than 200 teachers and closed dozens of failing schools, and Patricia Levesque, director of Bush's education think tank.
Last week, the team released proposals to revisit teacher merit pay, expand school voucher programs and dramatically alter how public schools are funded. Most of the proposals aligned with Scott's campaign promise to get rid of an "outdated system" that relies too much on traditional schools.
Teachers and parents are using several Facebook pages to organize opposition — much like they did last year when Republicans passed Senate Bill 6, a wildly controversial merit pay proposal that tied teacher pay to student test scores.
After parents and teachers staged massive protests and inundated his office with phone calls and e-mails, outgoing Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed the legislation. Crist said then that it was like no other issue he'd seen before.
Some of the same Facebook groups involved in the merit pay fight, such as Stop Senate Bill 6 and Testing Is Not Teaching, said they will battle Scott, too — but this time they know what they're doing.
"We need to let the legislators know that we're more organized than with Senate Bill 6 and we're not just going to roll over," Solnet said.
Cunard said some group members sent teachers a template for crafting legislation and encouraged them to draw up counterproposals over the holiday break from school.
"We're all for improving public schools," she said. "But we want a voice."
Even before Scott had been elected, four of the Facebook groups met in Orlando to organize a coalition, Solnet said. Testing Is Not Teaching has more than 11,000 fans, while Stop Senate Bill 6 has nearly 50,000.
They also are inviting legislators and the community to an education summit on Jan. 26 at Lynn University Bachelor's, master's & online degrees in Boca Raton.
The "Wear Red to Support Public Ed" campaign, which also has been endorsed by Illinois-based Save Our Schools Million Teacher March, is a signal to Scott, members said.
We're going to wear red "since we obviously can't afford the tickets to his party to tell him," Cunard said.
Tickets to Scott's inaugural ball cost $95; some other events are free.
Testing Is Not Teaching, which formed about a year ago in opposition to a new curriculum plan in Palm Beach County schools, used a similar tactic when members sent their children to school in orange clothes to show support for teachers, said its founder, Lisa Goldman. That group succeeded in getting the plan scrapped.
Goldman, a Wellington mother of four, said she was afraid of what might be in store for public schools under Scott.
The idea to wear red started — where else — on Facebook.
A Jacksonville teacher, Donna Yates Mace, put out the word on multiple Facebook pages. Within hours of Mace's post on Stop Senate Bill 6, the page's administrators had made the campaign an official event. Nearly 200 people committed to it within a day.
Many fans from both pages changed their profile pictures to an image of a red T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase "Keep Public Schools Public."
"These sites see a common purpose and we're all pulling together," Goldman said.
From the Sun Sentinel: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/education/fl-skul-facebook-20101231,0,7524110.story
Teachers and like-minded parents have struck first in an expected statewide battle over education changes being proposed by Gov.-elect Rick Scott's transition team.
They have held meetings and conference calls, traded information via Facebook, planned an education summit and formed bill-writing committees to create alternative legislation.
And on Tuesday, they plan to wear red to send the new governor — and the Republican-dominated legislature — a message that they support public schools.
"They're hearing nothing but Jeb Bush and his cronies — that's the whole transition team," said Rita Solnet, an education activist in Boca Raton who's involved in an effort to build a statewide coalition of parents and teachers who support traditional public education.
Bonnie Cunard, a Fort Myers teacher, said: "We've been absolutely ignored."
Scott's 20-member transition team has been led by Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of Washington, D.C., schools who fired more than 200 teachers and closed dozens of failing schools, and Patricia Levesque, director of Bush's education think tank.
Last week, the team released proposals to revisit teacher merit pay, expand school voucher programs and dramatically alter how public schools are funded. Most of the proposals aligned with Scott's campaign promise to get rid of an "outdated system" that relies too much on traditional schools.
Teachers and parents are using several Facebook pages to organize opposition — much like they did last year when Republicans passed Senate Bill 6, a wildly controversial merit pay proposal that tied teacher pay to student test scores.
After parents and teachers staged massive protests and inundated his office with phone calls and e-mails, outgoing Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed the legislation. Crist said then that it was like no other issue he'd seen before.
Some of the same Facebook groups involved in the merit pay fight, such as Stop Senate Bill 6 and Testing Is Not Teaching, said they will battle Scott, too — but this time they know what they're doing.
"We need to let the legislators know that we're more organized than with Senate Bill 6 and we're not just going to roll over," Solnet said.
Cunard said some group members sent teachers a template for crafting legislation and encouraged them to draw up counterproposals over the holiday break from school.
"We're all for improving public schools," she said. "But we want a voice."
Even before Scott had been elected, four of the Facebook groups met in Orlando to organize a coalition, Solnet said. Testing Is Not Teaching has more than 11,000 fans, while Stop Senate Bill 6 has nearly 50,000.
They also are inviting legislators and the community to an education summit on Jan. 26 at Lynn University Bachelor's, master's & online degrees in Boca Raton.
The "Wear Red to Support Public Ed" campaign, which also has been endorsed by Illinois-based Save Our Schools Million Teacher March, is a signal to Scott, members said.
We're going to wear red "since we obviously can't afford the tickets to his party to tell him," Cunard said.
Tickets to Scott's inaugural ball cost $95; some other events are free.
Testing Is Not Teaching, which formed about a year ago in opposition to a new curriculum plan in Palm Beach County schools, used a similar tactic when members sent their children to school in orange clothes to show support for teachers, said its founder, Lisa Goldman. That group succeeded in getting the plan scrapped.
Goldman, a Wellington mother of four, said she was afraid of what might be in store for public schools under Scott.
The idea to wear red started — where else — on Facebook.
A Jacksonville teacher, Donna Yates Mace, put out the word on multiple Facebook pages. Within hours of Mace's post on Stop Senate Bill 6, the page's administrators had made the campaign an official event. Nearly 200 people committed to it within a day.
Many fans from both pages changed their profile pictures to an image of a red T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase "Keep Public Schools Public."
"These sites see a common purpose and we're all pulling together," Goldman said.
From the Sun Sentinel: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/education/fl-skul-facebook-20101231,0,7524110.story
Scott has sights set squarely on education deform
The article talks about Scott's education team. You should only one member of the team is a teacher and he teaches at a virtual school. Furthermore Jeb Bush's Heritage Foundation talks about all the progress Florida has made but at the same time seeks to help dismantle our public schools. -cpg
By Catherine Whittenburg of the Tampa Tribune
TALLAHASSEE - Should Florida offer to pay for any public school student to attend a private one instead?
That's just one of the policy debates brewing in Tallahassee about Florida's K-12 education system, which Gov.-elect Rick Scott appears ready to turn on its head.
From the moment he is sworn in Tuesday, Florida's new "Let's Get to Work" governor will be under pressure to create jobs and invigorate the economy. But those aren't Scott's only priorities. The governor-elect is also talking up education reforms, some of which borrow substantially from his predecessor-before-last, Jeb Bush.
Bush aggressively pursued conservative reforms of Florida's school system, partly by creating private school tuition "vouchers" for children in various categories of need.
Last month, Scott signaled his desire to take school choice in Florida to the next level, possibly by making vouchers available to all students. At a school vouchers rally in St. Petersburg, he called the upcoming legislative session an opportunity to "give every child in the state every opportunity that you've had -- to make sure you go to whatever school you want to."
Scott's team of education advisers then released its recommendations, including one for a voucher-like program called "educational savings accounts." Such a program would offer every public school student in Florida a private school tuition subsidy, equal to 85 percent of the amount that Florida would spend to educate him or her in the public system.
The remaining 15 percent, according to the report, would represent direct savings to the state. Families could also spend their subsidies on options like private tutoring, private virtual schooling or college savings plans.
It's an idea promoted by Patricia Levesque, Bush's former deputy chief of staff who now directs his Foundation for Florida's Future, the advocacy organization that Bush formed to continue pressing his brand of education reform. Levesque is also head of Scott's K-12 education advisory group.
Jean Clements, president of the teachers union in Hillsborough County, said she hopes statewide educational savings accounts are "an idea that dies on the vine."
"Even the conservative leaders in the House and Senate, who have been big proponents of vouchers for a long time, have the ability, the experience and the insight to see what a flawed concept that would be," she said. "It leaves public schools still having to provide all of the services required by law … but they would be operating on a ghost budget from year to year. How would they provide those services? It would create great instability from year to year."
The notion of vouchers-for-all "contradicts what the message has been from voucher supporters over the last few years," said Democratic Rep. Martin Kiar of Davie, who sits on two House education committees.
Florida's existing voucher programs have enjoyed bipartisan support because they were created to help students with specific needs, he said.
"Providing a voucher to every child doesn't make much sense. You could have a child coming from a well-off family who could afford to send them to a private school; they could be surrounded by 'A' schools, yet they will have the opportunity to get a voucher from the state."
On a practical level, he said, "I don't know how it could be implemented, or how the state could afford it. It would, I believe, potentially close up to half of our public schools."
State Rep. Will Weatherford, who sponsored legislation in 2010 that expanded an existing voucher program for low-income children, said that's just scare talk from voucher opponents.
"I don't see how empowering a parent could be damaging to any education system. People need to stop talking about the education 'system' and start talking about students."
Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, said he had yet to read the details of the proposed educational savings accounts. Advocates would have to develop such a program carefully, he said, given the court challenge that ended a Bush-era voucher program in 2006 on grounds it violated constitutional protections of public education.
"But I applaud the fact that the governor wants to continue the state of Florida's great record of expanding school choice."
Levesque did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Scott's staff, though they have stressed that all recommendations from the governor-elect's advisers remain just that at this point.
Another of Scott's education advisers, former state education commissioner Frank Brogan, said that "much of what you will hear by way of wailing and gnashing of teeth is probably overblown. I think most parents are probably very happy with where their child goes to school."
If such a reform passes, "it would clearly be, on a national scale, the expansive choice effort in the country," said Brogan, who was Bush's lieutenant governor.
But its practical effect would not be so dramatic, he said. Even if vast numbers of parents did want to enroll their children in private education, "there would not be room … simply because most of the schools in the state of Florida are full today -- that's both public and private. So the belief that this perceived mass exodus would occur, I think is wrong."
Another schools policy in the works could ignite even more fireworks this spring, if last year's fight over it is any indication.
Angry teachers and parents persuaded Gov. Charlie Crist to veto Senate Bill 6, a bill that would have phased out tenure for K-12 teachers and ushered in a new era of paying teachers based on their students' performance on tests.
Among other things, opponents complained it relied too much on testing, eroded local control of schools and could harm special-needs teachers whose students would not likely make the learning gains required to trigger pay raises and certification renewals.
During the campaign, Scott noted repeatedly that his daughter teaches children with disabilities, indicating a sensitivity to the challenges faced by such educators. But he also said that he would have signed SB 6 and considers the next version of the bill a priority.
Levesque, heavily involved in the new bill's drafting, briefed lawmakers in November on its progress. No legislation has yet been filed, but a recent draft includes changes like evaluation guidelines to accommodate special-needs teachers and potential salary boosts for those teaching in low-income schools or "critical teacher shortage" areas like science and math.
Mark Pudlow, spokesman for the Florida Education Association, called the changes he has seen so far "minor tweaks."
"We're seeing an awful lot of the same ideas," he said. "Pretty much, it's what was in SB 6."
Key components of the bill likewise appear among the recommendations from Scott's education advisers, none of whom is a K-12 public school teacher. The closest is MaryEllen Elia, Hillsborough County's reform-minded schools superintendent who has worked closely with the teachers union to overhaul the district's methods of evaluating and paying teachers.
"From my perspective, the whole concept of merit pay -- and support -- for teachers is absolutely critical," she said.
In an interview, Elia downplayed the absence of traditional teachers on Scott's team, saying she still considers herself one. But she also noted that Hillsborough's success thus far in reforming its system is rooted in collaboration with local educators.
Asked this week about including more teachers in future discussions, Scott said he talked to teachers all the time during the campaign.
"I told them that teachers ought to come up with a bill they support," he said. "Do you know how many teachers have come up with a bill? Zero. We have to listen to them, but they have to come up with how they want to be measured."
cwhittenburg@tampatrib.com
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/jan/02/021017/incoming-governor-has-sights-set-squarely-on-educa/news-breaking/
By Catherine Whittenburg of the Tampa Tribune
TALLAHASSEE - Should Florida offer to pay for any public school student to attend a private one instead?
That's just one of the policy debates brewing in Tallahassee about Florida's K-12 education system, which Gov.-elect Rick Scott appears ready to turn on its head.
From the moment he is sworn in Tuesday, Florida's new "Let's Get to Work" governor will be under pressure to create jobs and invigorate the economy. But those aren't Scott's only priorities. The governor-elect is also talking up education reforms, some of which borrow substantially from his predecessor-before-last, Jeb Bush.
Bush aggressively pursued conservative reforms of Florida's school system, partly by creating private school tuition "vouchers" for children in various categories of need.
Last month, Scott signaled his desire to take school choice in Florida to the next level, possibly by making vouchers available to all students. At a school vouchers rally in St. Petersburg, he called the upcoming legislative session an opportunity to "give every child in the state every opportunity that you've had -- to make sure you go to whatever school you want to."
Scott's team of education advisers then released its recommendations, including one for a voucher-like program called "educational savings accounts." Such a program would offer every public school student in Florida a private school tuition subsidy, equal to 85 percent of the amount that Florida would spend to educate him or her in the public system.
The remaining 15 percent, according to the report, would represent direct savings to the state. Families could also spend their subsidies on options like private tutoring, private virtual schooling or college savings plans.
It's an idea promoted by Patricia Levesque, Bush's former deputy chief of staff who now directs his Foundation for Florida's Future, the advocacy organization that Bush formed to continue pressing his brand of education reform. Levesque is also head of Scott's K-12 education advisory group.
Jean Clements, president of the teachers union in Hillsborough County, said she hopes statewide educational savings accounts are "an idea that dies on the vine."
"Even the conservative leaders in the House and Senate, who have been big proponents of vouchers for a long time, have the ability, the experience and the insight to see what a flawed concept that would be," she said. "It leaves public schools still having to provide all of the services required by law … but they would be operating on a ghost budget from year to year. How would they provide those services? It would create great instability from year to year."
The notion of vouchers-for-all "contradicts what the message has been from voucher supporters over the last few years," said Democratic Rep. Martin Kiar of Davie, who sits on two House education committees.
Florida's existing voucher programs have enjoyed bipartisan support because they were created to help students with specific needs, he said.
"Providing a voucher to every child doesn't make much sense. You could have a child coming from a well-off family who could afford to send them to a private school; they could be surrounded by 'A' schools, yet they will have the opportunity to get a voucher from the state."
On a practical level, he said, "I don't know how it could be implemented, or how the state could afford it. It would, I believe, potentially close up to half of our public schools."
State Rep. Will Weatherford, who sponsored legislation in 2010 that expanded an existing voucher program for low-income children, said that's just scare talk from voucher opponents.
"I don't see how empowering a parent could be damaging to any education system. People need to stop talking about the education 'system' and start talking about students."
Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, said he had yet to read the details of the proposed educational savings accounts. Advocates would have to develop such a program carefully, he said, given the court challenge that ended a Bush-era voucher program in 2006 on grounds it violated constitutional protections of public education.
"But I applaud the fact that the governor wants to continue the state of Florida's great record of expanding school choice."
Levesque did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Scott's staff, though they have stressed that all recommendations from the governor-elect's advisers remain just that at this point.
Another of Scott's education advisers, former state education commissioner Frank Brogan, said that "much of what you will hear by way of wailing and gnashing of teeth is probably overblown. I think most parents are probably very happy with where their child goes to school."
If such a reform passes, "it would clearly be, on a national scale, the expansive choice effort in the country," said Brogan, who was Bush's lieutenant governor.
But its practical effect would not be so dramatic, he said. Even if vast numbers of parents did want to enroll their children in private education, "there would not be room … simply because most of the schools in the state of Florida are full today -- that's both public and private. So the belief that this perceived mass exodus would occur, I think is wrong."
Another schools policy in the works could ignite even more fireworks this spring, if last year's fight over it is any indication.
Angry teachers and parents persuaded Gov. Charlie Crist to veto Senate Bill 6, a bill that would have phased out tenure for K-12 teachers and ushered in a new era of paying teachers based on their students' performance on tests.
Among other things, opponents complained it relied too much on testing, eroded local control of schools and could harm special-needs teachers whose students would not likely make the learning gains required to trigger pay raises and certification renewals.
During the campaign, Scott noted repeatedly that his daughter teaches children with disabilities, indicating a sensitivity to the challenges faced by such educators. But he also said that he would have signed SB 6 and considers the next version of the bill a priority.
Levesque, heavily involved in the new bill's drafting, briefed lawmakers in November on its progress. No legislation has yet been filed, but a recent draft includes changes like evaluation guidelines to accommodate special-needs teachers and potential salary boosts for those teaching in low-income schools or "critical teacher shortage" areas like science and math.
Mark Pudlow, spokesman for the Florida Education Association, called the changes he has seen so far "minor tweaks."
"We're seeing an awful lot of the same ideas," he said. "Pretty much, it's what was in SB 6."
Key components of the bill likewise appear among the recommendations from Scott's education advisers, none of whom is a K-12 public school teacher. The closest is MaryEllen Elia, Hillsborough County's reform-minded schools superintendent who has worked closely with the teachers union to overhaul the district's methods of evaluating and paying teachers.
"From my perspective, the whole concept of merit pay -- and support -- for teachers is absolutely critical," she said.
In an interview, Elia downplayed the absence of traditional teachers on Scott's team, saying she still considers herself one. But she also noted that Hillsborough's success thus far in reforming its system is rooted in collaboration with local educators.
Asked this week about including more teachers in future discussions, Scott said he talked to teachers all the time during the campaign.
"I told them that teachers ought to come up with a bill they support," he said. "Do you know how many teachers have come up with a bill? Zero. We have to listen to them, but they have to come up with how they want to be measured."
cwhittenburg@tampatrib.com
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/jan/02/021017/incoming-governor-has-sights-set-squarely-on-educa/news-breaking/
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Is Rick Scott’s Private Voucher Plan Just An Overton Window Mover?
By Ray Seaman
When I first heard of Governor-Elect Rick Scott’s plans to dismantle Florida’s public education system and turn it into a giant private voucher experiment, I was like most folks, both angry and worried. If you’re unfamiliar with Scott’s plan, here it is:
Florida Gov.-elect Rick Scott on Thursday blew the door wide open to the idea of a voucherlike program for all students, saying he’s working with lawmakers to allow state education dollars to follow a student to the school his or her parents choose.
He did not use the term vouchers. Others called it an “education savings account.”
But whatever it’s called, the incoming governor, key lawmakers and a foundation tied to former Gov. Jeb Bush are setting the stage for Florida to consider one of the most radical education ideas that it — or arguably any state — has ever considered.
Scott’s plan has already received an outpouring of opposition. I haven’t heard much support at all for such a plan excluding the usual suspects like Sen. John Thrasher (R-St. Augustine) and other public school haters. Perhaps the most surprising reaction however came from big time voucher hucksters themselves. Andrew Coulson, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, said Scott’s proposal goes too far:
But what if the ESA [Education Savings Accounts] has no serious hope of passing muster with the state Supreme Court, and in the process of being struck down would jeopardize successful existing programs? Sadly, that appears to be the most likely outcome.
In light of the Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 Bush v. Holmes ruling, in which it struck down the OSP [Opportunity Scholarship Program] voucher program, there does not seem to be any way for the Court could uphold any sort of voucher program in Florida even if it wanted to (see below)—and there’s no reason to think it wants to. In fact, it seems likely that a lower court would grant an injunction against any voucher program even being implemented in Florida, pending the outcome of the inevitable lawsuit.
The result of simultaneously passing the ESA program and abolishing the corporate income tax would thus be to gut Florida’s existing, successful, popular, money-saving scholarship donation tax credit program without providing a viable alternative. That would decimate school choice in Florida. Furthermore, an additional anti-voucher ruling by the Court might expand on its earlier Bush v. Holmes ruling, thereby jeopardizing the McKay voucher program for special needs children that is also successful, popular, and far more efficient than the public school system.
Leave aside for a moment the fact there doesn’t seem to be any substantial evidence showing Florida’s existing voucher program actually outperforms our public schools. However, Coulson is likely correct about the legal implications for passing a universal private voucher program into law. The St. Petersburg Times editorial board discussed this when they knocked Scott’s plans:
The Florida Supreme Court struck down the Bush-inspired Opportunity Scholarships, which were tuition vouchers to be given to students in failing public schools. The 2006 court opinion found those vouchers violated a constitutional requirement for a “uniform system of free public schools.” The high court was silent on another constitutional provision that bars state money from going to religious institutions, which a lower appellate court cited. Two existing voucher programs, the Florida Tax Credit voucher for students from low-income families and the McKay Scholarship voucher for disabled students, are similarly flawed but have yet to be legally tested.
I’m not a lawyer or an expert on the Florida constitution, but it seems that based on the evidence, if Scott and the far right really wanted a universal voucher program, they would have to pass a constitutional amendment of some kind to neuter or muddy up the “uniform system of free public schools” language in the constitution. I highly doubt Florida voters would pass such an amendment with more than 60% of the vote. I would be surprised if such an idea even received a majority of the vote. Keep in mind, 62% of voters in Utah (yes, Utah) defeated a statewide ballot proposal creating a universal voucher program in 2007.
So what’s this all about then, anyway if Scott’s universal voucher plan is a legal absurdity? The only thing I can think of is the tried and true tactic of the right, which is moving the public discourse to more favorable conservative ground. This is what’s called “Moving the Overton window.” Basically, by pushing such an extreme proposal, even if it’s defeated, it becomes less crazy the next time around, and in the meantime it allows you to successfully push through less extreme, but still radical ideas into the mainstream.
So Scott’s push for universal vouchers may just make things like basing half of a teacher’s pay on a student’s test scores a more palatable idea. Keep in mind, such a proposal in the form of Senate Bill 6 caused a firestorm of opposition earlier this year, leading to its demise at the hands of Gov. Charlie Crist’s veto pen. Now, in the context of Rick Scott’s very crazy plan to essentially dismantle their schools, at least some teachers are reportedly warming up to the idea of a less destructive form of SB 6. Never mind the fact that the only major controlled study on merit pay demonstrates that it doesn’t work at all. Yet we’re still tinkering with the idea like it’s something we have to have to make public schools better. Witness the moving of the Overton window.
So while public education supporters and advocates should certainly target Scott’s universal voucher plan for defeat, they shouldn’t forget about all the other fires the legislature has burning out there. If anything, Scott’s radical plans could just be a giant distraction to get a lot of other horrible anti-public school legislation passed.
http://www.dailymarion.com/2010/12/29/is-rick-scotts-private-voucher-plan-just-an-overton-window-mover/
When I first heard of Governor-Elect Rick Scott’s plans to dismantle Florida’s public education system and turn it into a giant private voucher experiment, I was like most folks, both angry and worried. If you’re unfamiliar with Scott’s plan, here it is:
Florida Gov.-elect Rick Scott on Thursday blew the door wide open to the idea of a voucherlike program for all students, saying he’s working with lawmakers to allow state education dollars to follow a student to the school his or her parents choose.
He did not use the term vouchers. Others called it an “education savings account.”
But whatever it’s called, the incoming governor, key lawmakers and a foundation tied to former Gov. Jeb Bush are setting the stage for Florida to consider one of the most radical education ideas that it — or arguably any state — has ever considered.
Scott’s plan has already received an outpouring of opposition. I haven’t heard much support at all for such a plan excluding the usual suspects like Sen. John Thrasher (R-St. Augustine) and other public school haters. Perhaps the most surprising reaction however came from big time voucher hucksters themselves. Andrew Coulson, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, said Scott’s proposal goes too far:
But what if the ESA [Education Savings Accounts] has no serious hope of passing muster with the state Supreme Court, and in the process of being struck down would jeopardize successful existing programs? Sadly, that appears to be the most likely outcome.
In light of the Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 Bush v. Holmes ruling, in which it struck down the OSP [Opportunity Scholarship Program] voucher program, there does not seem to be any way for the Court could uphold any sort of voucher program in Florida even if it wanted to (see below)—and there’s no reason to think it wants to. In fact, it seems likely that a lower court would grant an injunction against any voucher program even being implemented in Florida, pending the outcome of the inevitable lawsuit.
The result of simultaneously passing the ESA program and abolishing the corporate income tax would thus be to gut Florida’s existing, successful, popular, money-saving scholarship donation tax credit program without providing a viable alternative. That would decimate school choice in Florida. Furthermore, an additional anti-voucher ruling by the Court might expand on its earlier Bush v. Holmes ruling, thereby jeopardizing the McKay voucher program for special needs children that is also successful, popular, and far more efficient than the public school system.
Leave aside for a moment the fact there doesn’t seem to be any substantial evidence showing Florida’s existing voucher program actually outperforms our public schools. However, Coulson is likely correct about the legal implications for passing a universal private voucher program into law. The St. Petersburg Times editorial board discussed this when they knocked Scott’s plans:
The Florida Supreme Court struck down the Bush-inspired Opportunity Scholarships, which were tuition vouchers to be given to students in failing public schools. The 2006 court opinion found those vouchers violated a constitutional requirement for a “uniform system of free public schools.” The high court was silent on another constitutional provision that bars state money from going to religious institutions, which a lower appellate court cited. Two existing voucher programs, the Florida Tax Credit voucher for students from low-income families and the McKay Scholarship voucher for disabled students, are similarly flawed but have yet to be legally tested.
I’m not a lawyer or an expert on the Florida constitution, but it seems that based on the evidence, if Scott and the far right really wanted a universal voucher program, they would have to pass a constitutional amendment of some kind to neuter or muddy up the “uniform system of free public schools” language in the constitution. I highly doubt Florida voters would pass such an amendment with more than 60% of the vote. I would be surprised if such an idea even received a majority of the vote. Keep in mind, 62% of voters in Utah (yes, Utah) defeated a statewide ballot proposal creating a universal voucher program in 2007.
So what’s this all about then, anyway if Scott’s universal voucher plan is a legal absurdity? The only thing I can think of is the tried and true tactic of the right, which is moving the public discourse to more favorable conservative ground. This is what’s called “Moving the Overton window.” Basically, by pushing such an extreme proposal, even if it’s defeated, it becomes less crazy the next time around, and in the meantime it allows you to successfully push through less extreme, but still radical ideas into the mainstream.
So Scott’s push for universal vouchers may just make things like basing half of a teacher’s pay on a student’s test scores a more palatable idea. Keep in mind, such a proposal in the form of Senate Bill 6 caused a firestorm of opposition earlier this year, leading to its demise at the hands of Gov. Charlie Crist’s veto pen. Now, in the context of Rick Scott’s very crazy plan to essentially dismantle their schools, at least some teachers are reportedly warming up to the idea of a less destructive form of SB 6. Never mind the fact that the only major controlled study on merit pay demonstrates that it doesn’t work at all. Yet we’re still tinkering with the idea like it’s something we have to have to make public schools better. Witness the moving of the Overton window.
So while public education supporters and advocates should certainly target Scott’s universal voucher plan for defeat, they shouldn’t forget about all the other fires the legislature has burning out there. If anything, Scott’s radical plans could just be a giant distraction to get a lot of other horrible anti-public school legislation passed.
http://www.dailymarion.com/2010/12/29/is-rick-scotts-private-voucher-plan-just-an-overton-window-mover/
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
A look back at Florida education in 2010
From the St. Petersberg Times Grade Book
A look back gives insight for future of Florida education news
Some say the past is preview and prologue for the future. That seems likely the case for Florida's biggest education stories of 2010, all of which have tendrils into 2011.
Look no further than Senate Bill 6. The legislation, which emerged quietly in March, aimed to dramatically change the way Florida contracts, hires, fires, evaluates and certifies its public school teachers. It itself was the offshoot of an unsuccessful 2009 House bill with the moniker "Quality Teachers For All Students Act."
Once word of SB 6 hit, it generated a furious backlash. Not the usual FCAT-hating, Jeb Bush-bashing variety. No, this was a real grassroots effort, from Facebook to street corner, that joined parents and teachers in opposition to an effort that seemed to ignore input from those who had a key stake in the matter as state leaders pushed to qualify for federal Race to the Top funding. (Who wouldn't want a nearly $1 billion infusion during tough times, after all?)
Only a last minute veto by Gov. Charlie Crist killed the initiative. But only for the moment. Crist won't be governor anymore, and governor-elect Rick Scott looks more favorably upon the teacher "tenure" proposals expected to come from a veto-proof GOP majority in 2011.
Also on the Tallahassee front, the Legislature began the end of the high school FCAT, authorizing the creation of end-of-course exams more closely aligned to individual course curricula. Those exams begin in 2011 with Algebra I. Lawmakers expanded the number of corporate tax credit scholarships (vouchers to some) available to Florida students, perhaps paving the way for a 2011 discussion on vouchers for all that Scott kicked off in the final days of the year to a frenzy of national commentary.
And lawmakers took yet another shot at scaling back the 2002 class size amendment, asking voters to ease the restrictions that otherwise would take effect with the 2010-11 academic year. The November referendum didn't cross the 60 percent threshold needed for approval, leaving the issue of implementation in tough budget times open for yet another year of debate. Already the Pasco School Board has approved more restrictive school choice rules to align more closely to the class size mandate, while also redrawing attendance zones to make it easier to comply.
Speaking of tough budget times, 2010 marked yet another year of school board spending cuts across Florida and the Tampa Bay region. Teachers saw their pay continue to stagnate while also being required to do more work and, in some instances, pay more for shrinking benefits. Districts tried to avoid layoffs and program cuts with varying degrees of success. With revenue estimates looking bleak and federal stimulus funding coming to an end, budget cuts promise to remain with us in 2011.
Still, the Hillsborough school district was able to find money to match its Gates Foundation grant for changing its teacher evaluation system. The effort, still in its infancy, has received enough teacher support without major public infighting to win national attention as the kinder, gentler way to approach teacher quality reform.
Contrast that with Pinellas County's attempt to overhaul its academic programs through a series of moves and mergers. As each idea gained a public airing (or sometimes because it didn't), parents, educators and even students came out to blast the concepts and press the School Board to kill it. Two new members elected in November joined the majority to adopt some of the concepts, such as a new International Baccalaureate program. But overall the new majority approved only a shell of superintendent Julie Janssen's recommendation.
All the area school districts saw major improvement in their graduation rates and high school grades from the state, as the Department of Education adopted new standards for each. Yet even within that good news lay the seeds of future problems, as the new definitions included measures that appeared to obscure reality. (One example is giving Advanced Placement participation greater weight than performance for school grades. The ratio will change over two years.) Calls for fixes began the day after the press releases hit.
Still, Florida's school grading system remained the envy of many other states, where leaders brought in former governor Bush or his team of supporters to explain the Florida model. The ideas began to take hold in several places, including New Mexico, where former Florida deputy education commissioner Hanna Skandera was appointed to become education secretary, as well as Indiana, Utah, Oklahoma and a host of others. That's yet another Florida education story that promises to take root in 2011.
Stay tuned.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/content/look-back-gives-insight-future-florida-education-news
A look back gives insight for future of Florida education news
Some say the past is preview and prologue for the future. That seems likely the case for Florida's biggest education stories of 2010, all of which have tendrils into 2011.
Look no further than Senate Bill 6. The legislation, which emerged quietly in March, aimed to dramatically change the way Florida contracts, hires, fires, evaluates and certifies its public school teachers. It itself was the offshoot of an unsuccessful 2009 House bill with the moniker "Quality Teachers For All Students Act."
Once word of SB 6 hit, it generated a furious backlash. Not the usual FCAT-hating, Jeb Bush-bashing variety. No, this was a real grassroots effort, from Facebook to street corner, that joined parents and teachers in opposition to an effort that seemed to ignore input from those who had a key stake in the matter as state leaders pushed to qualify for federal Race to the Top funding. (Who wouldn't want a nearly $1 billion infusion during tough times, after all?)
Only a last minute veto by Gov. Charlie Crist killed the initiative. But only for the moment. Crist won't be governor anymore, and governor-elect Rick Scott looks more favorably upon the teacher "tenure" proposals expected to come from a veto-proof GOP majority in 2011.
Also on the Tallahassee front, the Legislature began the end of the high school FCAT, authorizing the creation of end-of-course exams more closely aligned to individual course curricula. Those exams begin in 2011 with Algebra I. Lawmakers expanded the number of corporate tax credit scholarships (vouchers to some) available to Florida students, perhaps paving the way for a 2011 discussion on vouchers for all that Scott kicked off in the final days of the year to a frenzy of national commentary.
And lawmakers took yet another shot at scaling back the 2002 class size amendment, asking voters to ease the restrictions that otherwise would take effect with the 2010-11 academic year. The November referendum didn't cross the 60 percent threshold needed for approval, leaving the issue of implementation in tough budget times open for yet another year of debate. Already the Pasco School Board has approved more restrictive school choice rules to align more closely to the class size mandate, while also redrawing attendance zones to make it easier to comply.
Speaking of tough budget times, 2010 marked yet another year of school board spending cuts across Florida and the Tampa Bay region. Teachers saw their pay continue to stagnate while also being required to do more work and, in some instances, pay more for shrinking benefits. Districts tried to avoid layoffs and program cuts with varying degrees of success. With revenue estimates looking bleak and federal stimulus funding coming to an end, budget cuts promise to remain with us in 2011.
Still, the Hillsborough school district was able to find money to match its Gates Foundation grant for changing its teacher evaluation system. The effort, still in its infancy, has received enough teacher support without major public infighting to win national attention as the kinder, gentler way to approach teacher quality reform.
Contrast that with Pinellas County's attempt to overhaul its academic programs through a series of moves and mergers. As each idea gained a public airing (or sometimes because it didn't), parents, educators and even students came out to blast the concepts and press the School Board to kill it. Two new members elected in November joined the majority to adopt some of the concepts, such as a new International Baccalaureate program. But overall the new majority approved only a shell of superintendent Julie Janssen's recommendation.
All the area school districts saw major improvement in their graduation rates and high school grades from the state, as the Department of Education adopted new standards for each. Yet even within that good news lay the seeds of future problems, as the new definitions included measures that appeared to obscure reality. (One example is giving Advanced Placement participation greater weight than performance for school grades. The ratio will change over two years.) Calls for fixes began the day after the press releases hit.
Still, Florida's school grading system remained the envy of many other states, where leaders brought in former governor Bush or his team of supporters to explain the Florida model. The ideas began to take hold in several places, including New Mexico, where former Florida deputy education commissioner Hanna Skandera was appointed to become education secretary, as well as Indiana, Utah, Oklahoma and a host of others. That's yet another Florida education story that promises to take root in 2011.
Stay tuned.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/content/look-back-gives-insight-future-florida-education-news
Teachers have serious reservations about merit pay, nobody is listening
By Jennie Smith, Dade County Education Policy Examiner
Saturday's Miami Herald published an article education reporter Kathleen McGrory entitled "Teachers give higher grade to merit pay." The gist of the article (which you can read in its entirety by clicking on the link above) is that the "Senate Bill 6 2.0," a.k.a. the Sister of SB 6, a "new" teacher tenure/merit pay bill which is already in the works in Florida's ultraconservative state legislature, is such an improvement over the last one, which created such a public outcry that outgoing governor Charlie Crist (who, it must be mentioned, had initially lauded the bill) vetoed it in an attempt to garner votes from disgruntled educators and parents.
As a public school teacher who stays very up-to-date on developments in public education and education policy, and who is very politically active in the domain of public education, I was quite shocked to read the headline.
"Really? Teachers are giving this new bill a 'higher grade'? That's news to me."
See, since I do stay current on education issues as they evolve (or explode, as the case may be), I knew all about the "new SB 6." I have already seen a draft of it, though it has likely changed at least somewhat since I saw it. And while I did note some minor improvements (which really constitute more of a "facelift," designed to lull current teachers into a false sense of security by implying that the most radical changes might not actually apply to them, but only to a future generation of teachers), the core of the bill remains unchanged.
I am still not sure on what grounds McGrory (or the Herald) can claim that teachers are embracing the new legislation. She points to Andy Ford, president of Florida Education Assocation (FEA), the state teachers' union, saying, "We're open to looking at paying teachers differently...It's really about how you develop the plan."
This could hardly be used as evidence that Ford or FEA support the "new" bill--much less as any sort of consensus that public school teachers across the state of Florida support it.
Real changes? Or more of the same?
The "major changes" that McGrory cites in her article are as follows:
The old: Known as Senate Bill 6, it was based half a teacher's evaluation on student performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.
The new: Allows end-of-course exams, Advanced Placement tests and tests developed by local school districts to be factored in, too.
Nothing in that is new. In fact, SB 6 as it was written stated that the FCAT would be used until the state and/or districts developed end-of-course exams (EOC), which would replace the FCAT. Those EOCs are, in fact, already being rolled out and piloted in schools in Miami-Dade County, including the one I work at. The old legislation also allowed for Advanced Placement (AP) tests to be used in applicable courses (which obviously could not use the FCAT).
No teachers I know would consider this to be a vast improvement over the old legislation, at least not without seeing the new tests, or knowing exactly how they (or existing tests, such as AP) would be used to determine evaluations and/or raises.
In fact, as a teacher of one Advanced Placement class, and as a friend of several AP teachers of various subjects, I think that I can accurately voice our intense concerns over AP tests being used in measuring our "effectiveness" and therefore our salary and/or eventual employment.
I could go on for pages about this, but I will do my best to keep it brief. In sum, using AP tests to measure teachers is no different from using the FCAT to measure teachers, and in a certain respect, could be even worse. Let me explain as concisely as I can.
AP Exams are standardized tests devised and administered by the College Board (those who bring you the SAT). In order for a class to call itself "Advanced Placement," the College Board must approve its syllabus. Toward the end of the year (usually in early May), examinations are administered to the students studying these AP classes. Generally speaking, if a student scores at least a 3 out of 5 possible points on the AP Exam, he/she receives college credit for the class. Of course, colleges themselves decide whether or not to award credit based on AP Exam scores (most state universities and colleges do, while many of the higher-echelon schools, both state and private, do not, or require a score of 5).
Part of the reason that using these tests to "measure teacher effectiveness" is problematic is for the same reason as it would be for the FCAT. If you are comparing the AP scores of students in, let's say, Overtown or Little Haiti or Little Havana or Hialeah, who often come from parents who do not speak English, and many of whom are illiterate even in their native language, and who have not had the opportunities, resources or education-prioritizing structure at home that give so many middle-class and wealthy children a huge advantage on all standardized tests (as reflected by national data), to students in Coral Gables, or at magnet schools that "skim the cream" off so many neighborhood schools, there will obviously be a difference. This difference does not by any means indicate that the teacher is of poorer quality, or is "less effective." Anyone who has ever worked in a classroom will tell you that it is easier to get students who come in well-prepared, motivated and academically supported (and often pushed) at home than those who come in ill-prepared and who often have parents either unable to help them or who simply do not see education as a top priority and therefore do not push their children to study.
This situation, which is already apples-to-oranges (or in a Miami context, perhaps mangoes-to-coconuts), is further compounded by the fact that the new high school accountability formula, which factors participation and performance in AP classes into high school grades (along with FCAT scores and graduation rates), has already encouraged many schools, especially those with a "lower grade" (usually C, D and F schools), to push (and sometimes even force) unprepared or undermotivated students into AP classes.
Statewide, teachers have been "encouraged" (read: told) to corral as many students as possible into AP classes, regardless of whether or not we feel the students are prepared for or willing to do the work and ultimately perform well on the exam. We are often told that "regardless of whether or not they pass the exam, the students will benefit from having taken the higher-level class." In some regards, that statement might be true; on the other hand, it means that motivated or relatively high-performing students are pushed into four, five, six, sometimes even seven or eight (at eight-period block schedule schools) AP classes in one year, causing them to get overwhelmed and perform poorly on all of the exams, and sometimes in the class itself. The other unintended consequence is that when more and more AP classes are created, and filled with students who either did not want to take an AP class or are not academically prepared for the AP class, the rigor of the class is damaged. This is unfortunate but in some cases inevitable. If you have a class full of students who, well-meaning though they might be (and this is not always a given, when students are put in AP classes against their will), do not yet have the skills or knowledge required to study the material on a college level, it is ridiculous, if not impossible, to actually teach the material on a college level.
Thus, educators teaching AP classes in neighborhood schools in disadvantaged communities will now find themselves measured by the performance not just of students they would have recommended for AP classes (who already will often perform at a different level than the children of wealthier, college-educated parents who are fluent in English and prioritize education and studying), but also by the performance of students who, by any rational measure, probably should not be in an AP class at all.
For example, does it make sense to have children sitting, in the same day, in an Intensive Reading class (meaning they failed the FCAT) and an AP English class? It seems counterintuitive, yet it is a situation that those of us teaching in urban schools confront every day. There are two possible reasons for this occurring. One is that the student really should not have failed the FCAT, and that they did attests to the fallibility of that test. Another is that the student really should not be in an AP class, but has been put there, either because he asked for it (for any number of reasons: to feel "smarter," to be with his friends, because he wanted a certain teacher, etc., etc.) or because he was pushed there because he made pretty good grades in his English classes, because he was well-behaved and relatively motivated, etc.
By no logic is it a fair comparison.
Additionally, while a "value-added" formula would supposedly be used to measure teachers of FCAT classes, evaluating the teachers based on "growth" and taking into account certain factors, no such formula can really exist for AP exams. How do you measure "growth" on a test where there is no basis of comparison, since it is not tested year to year like the FCAT?
This will be a similar problem with EOCs. If a student is studying a subject for the very first time, he will not have any scores from previous years upon which to base some sort of measure of "growth." And if the solution is simply administering a pre-test in the subject area, will that really prove how effective his teacher is? If I administer a pre-test to my French I students the first week of school, which is similar to the EOC they will take at the end of the year, they will undoubtedly all fail dismally. So, with that as the basis of growth, even my most mediocre students will probably score phenomenally well on the EOC, if one is looking at growth rather than flat scores. Which could obviously work out to my advantage, if that is ultimately the way it is administered, but does not make a whole lot of sense.
Yet in my skeptical (and cynical) opinion, this is the most benign of possible outcomes, and would have the unintended consequence of too many teachers being paid too much ("too much" for the state's and district's budgets: since the goal of the new governor and of the legislature is to cut the education budget, you can be sure they are not going to put in place any plan that will result in higher costs in teacher salaries).
In order for it to work with their budget plans, they will end up having to look at flat scores on AP Exams and on EOCs. And the result will be that those of us who choose to work in more difficult schools with more troubled and disadvantaged students will be unfairly punished by lower evaluations, lower salaries and possibly losing our jobs, simply because we are working with more students who come to us less prepared, with less academic and financial support at home, and who are often less motivated (usually because they are not pushed as hard at home by parents who are less educated and who do not see education as a priority).
One further point, on that note: in her article, McGrory claims:
Studies show teacher effectiveness is the strongest predictor of student achievement.
However, this is not true, or at least is not the complete truth. Almost all reliable studies show that parents' income and education levels are the strongest predictors of student achievement. Teacher effectiveness is the biggest in-school factor. This is a very important distinction to make when we are discussing how teachers should be hired, fired and compensated.
The old: Did not address evaluating teachers in subjects such as music and art.
The new: Allows local school districts to develop tests in these areas.
Again, I find fault with this assertion that this is a difference in the old legislation and the new. Since the old legislation already called for using EOCs to evaluate teachers in all subject areas--once those tests had been developed, of course--this is not something new and improved. It is simply more of the same.
I would also take issue with the wording of the "new": let us be clear. The state is not "allowing" local school districts to develop tests in these areas; it is forcing them too, and undoubtedly forcing them to do it with money they will be expected to scrape out of their own pockets. In districts that have a surplus, this might be feasible. In districts like Miami-Dade County and Broward, where we are donor counties, putting more money into the state pot but taking back less per pupil than some small counties in the middle of the state for an area with a cost of living several times higher than those other counties, and where each new year is grimly met with the need to cut the budget either by cutting programs in schools or laying off employees, this is nothing short of sabotage. We will be mandated by the state to cut more money out of the classroom--whether through laying off employees, neglecting building safety and maintenance, using old and outdated resources, or simply chopping programs--to develop and administer tests.
And by the way, good luck creating a standardized test for physical education.
The old: Was based only on student learning gains.
The new: Also accounts for the poverty rate, attendance rate and the number of times a student has switched schools.
If they actually find an equitable way to do this, kudos to them. My hat will be off. Simply saying, "We will do this," and actually doing it in a fair manner, are two totally different things. Show me the formula you will use (and reassure me that "attendance rate" will not be my responsibility: I am not the mother of these children and I cannot force them to get out of bed in the morning and get their little rear ends into school), and we will talk.
The old: Had one salary schedule for all teachers.
The new: Has different salary schedules for teachers in critical shortage areas like math and science, or in low-income schools.
I suppose this could be viewed as an improvement. But that improvement could still amount to naught if they leave in place their flawed measurements, whether by FCAT or EOC or AP or whatever other acronyms they throw in, and if a teacher can still be fired, and even lose the ability to renew his or her certification, based on student scores. If I only intend to teach for two or three years, like most Teach for America alumni, then maybe that will sound pretty good--get paid more to teach in a low-income school. But if I plan on teaching as a career, and I know that I can lose my job (or make diddly squat) because my students do poorly on some standardized test that I not only did not write but was never allowed to look at, then no salary the state or district would actually be willing to pay me would convince me to work in a high-needs school. Sorry, but teachers are human too; we need to plan for the future like everyone else, and we want a certain level of job security like everyone else. If we think we have a better chance of keeping our jobs (and ultimately probably making more money too) by working in a school that is, well, easier to work in anyway...those of us who can, will.
The old: Did not factor in advanced degrees.
The new: Would factor in advanced degrees.
Perhaps I am slightly biased, since I have a Master degree and am currently paid more (not overwhelmingly more, but enough to feel it), but I do feel this is an improvement. I put time and effort into getting my MA, and in the process acquired teaching experience and practical experience (in my case, in the form of an exchange program in which I got to spend a year in France improving my French and my knowledge of French culture), and I feel that this without a doubt makes me a better French teacher.
Still, I will withhold applause until I get the details on exactly how, and how much, advanced degrees will be factored in.
The old: Would have had teachers working under one-year contracts.
The new: Would award three-year contracts. After each contract, school districts could choose to retain or fire a teacher, with or without cause.
Hmmm...excuse me? Was that a pause for applause? One year or three years, the new legislation still allows districts to fire teachers with or without cause. So theoretically I could be the teacher of the year at my school, have outstanding success with my students and be going above and beyond the call of duty every day, and still get fired because some principal does not like it that I am active in the teachers' union, or because I disagree with him/her on matters of school policy, or because we simply do not get along. Overall, I would say I have fantastic administrators, but based on conversations I have had with many different teachers at different schools not just in Dade County or in Florida, but around the nation, this makes me an exception, not the rule. Anyone who listens to this debate and says, "But of course no administrator would fire a good teacher, even if they had personal disagreements!" has obviously never been a teacher, or at least not long enough to see it happen (or to see it attempted). The union does not "protect bad teachers"--it protects all members' right to due process. If it is determined that there is just cause to fire the teacher, the teacher is fired. Period. But without the right to due process--which this legislation, even in its supposed "new, improved" form, would strip us of--we are once again at the mercy of administrators...and likely, of test scores.
Extending the contract from one year to three years does nothing more than add a little cushion--instead of worrying about whether we will have a job from year to year, we can worry about it once every three years. Except that with the way they plan on evaluating us based on student scores on tests that have not yet even been funded (much less written), we will probably still get to worry about it every year, since if the scores aren't great, we can probably expect to get fired at the end of the third year.
Jeb Bush is still at the reins.
Even though Jeb Bush has not been governor for three years, somehow he is still the puppetmaster in creating education policy in the state of Florida. McGrory's article attests that the "new proposal" is being crafted by the Foundation for Florida's Future, Jeb Bush's pet project in pushing for expansion of vouchers and charter schools.
Bush has been criticized mightily for using education policy to funnel money to family and friends in the standardized testing and charter school businesses.
He also opposed the 2002 Class Size Amendment, limiting the number of students per teacher in public schools, presumably because of its financial cost, and stated at the time that he had "a couple of devious plans if this thing passes." We can assume that his "devious plans" entail exactly what we see today--refusing to fund the amendment, though it is a constitutional mandate, so that districts have no choice but to cut programs, make layoffs, or pay hefty fines for non-compliance. He and his cronies hoped that this campaign of chaos would push parents to vote in favor of Amendment 8 in the 2010 election, weakening the class size amendment, but it did not succeed. (Maybe because too many people recognize that the reason for the chaos was a lack of funding from the state--not the amendment itself?)
Supposedly, the Foundation for Florida's Future (FFF--an ironic acronym, which, in my take, corresponds exactly to the grade I as an educator would give to this group) based much of its "new proposal" on the Memorandum of Understanding crafted by the Race to the Top work group convened by Charlie Crist in April.
Florida won a $700 million federal grant with its revised Race to the Top application. At the last Miami-Dade County School Board meeting, board members expressed concern that the new legislation would overstep the bounds defined by the MOU.
Further in her Herald article, McGrory states:
Half of teacher evaluations would be based on three years of student data -- such as scores on the FCATs, the new end-of-course exams, norm-reference tests or Advanced Placement tests. The system would look at student growth rather than raw scores, and would account for factors including poverty and student mobility.
Teachers' evaluations would determine at least half of their pay raises. Teachers who do not receive strong evaluations would get smaller raises, and over time the lowest performing teachers would be weeded out.
"Growth" would be difficult if not impossible to determine based on EOCs or AP tests, as I discussed at length earlier--unless the teacher is being compared to herself over three years, meaning her students' scores should rise every year--a statistic impossibility, especially when we are talking about an experienced teacher. Furthermore, the 50% mark oversteps the "no more than 30%" benchmark established by the Race to the Top MOU.
This leaves little doubt that the legislature does not really feel bound by the MOU, and is determined to pass their same agenda with minor "facelift" modifications intended to lull educators and parents into submission until it is too late.
http://www.examiner.com/dade-county-education-policy-in-miami/new-merit-pay-bill-gets-a-higher-grade-from-teachers-nobody-asked-me
Saturday's Miami Herald published an article education reporter Kathleen McGrory entitled "Teachers give higher grade to merit pay." The gist of the article (which you can read in its entirety by clicking on the link above) is that the "Senate Bill 6 2.0," a.k.a. the Sister of SB 6, a "new" teacher tenure/merit pay bill which is already in the works in Florida's ultraconservative state legislature, is such an improvement over the last one, which created such a public outcry that outgoing governor Charlie Crist (who, it must be mentioned, had initially lauded the bill) vetoed it in an attempt to garner votes from disgruntled educators and parents.
As a public school teacher who stays very up-to-date on developments in public education and education policy, and who is very politically active in the domain of public education, I was quite shocked to read the headline.
"Really? Teachers are giving this new bill a 'higher grade'? That's news to me."
See, since I do stay current on education issues as they evolve (or explode, as the case may be), I knew all about the "new SB 6." I have already seen a draft of it, though it has likely changed at least somewhat since I saw it. And while I did note some minor improvements (which really constitute more of a "facelift," designed to lull current teachers into a false sense of security by implying that the most radical changes might not actually apply to them, but only to a future generation of teachers), the core of the bill remains unchanged.
I am still not sure on what grounds McGrory (or the Herald) can claim that teachers are embracing the new legislation. She points to Andy Ford, president of Florida Education Assocation (FEA), the state teachers' union, saying, "We're open to looking at paying teachers differently...It's really about how you develop the plan."
This could hardly be used as evidence that Ford or FEA support the "new" bill--much less as any sort of consensus that public school teachers across the state of Florida support it.
Real changes? Or more of the same?
The "major changes" that McGrory cites in her article are as follows:
The old: Known as Senate Bill 6, it was based half a teacher's evaluation on student performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.
The new: Allows end-of-course exams, Advanced Placement tests and tests developed by local school districts to be factored in, too.
Nothing in that is new. In fact, SB 6 as it was written stated that the FCAT would be used until the state and/or districts developed end-of-course exams (EOC), which would replace the FCAT. Those EOCs are, in fact, already being rolled out and piloted in schools in Miami-Dade County, including the one I work at. The old legislation also allowed for Advanced Placement (AP) tests to be used in applicable courses (which obviously could not use the FCAT).
No teachers I know would consider this to be a vast improvement over the old legislation, at least not without seeing the new tests, or knowing exactly how they (or existing tests, such as AP) would be used to determine evaluations and/or raises.
In fact, as a teacher of one Advanced Placement class, and as a friend of several AP teachers of various subjects, I think that I can accurately voice our intense concerns over AP tests being used in measuring our "effectiveness" and therefore our salary and/or eventual employment.
I could go on for pages about this, but I will do my best to keep it brief. In sum, using AP tests to measure teachers is no different from using the FCAT to measure teachers, and in a certain respect, could be even worse. Let me explain as concisely as I can.
AP Exams are standardized tests devised and administered by the College Board (those who bring you the SAT). In order for a class to call itself "Advanced Placement," the College Board must approve its syllabus. Toward the end of the year (usually in early May), examinations are administered to the students studying these AP classes. Generally speaking, if a student scores at least a 3 out of 5 possible points on the AP Exam, he/she receives college credit for the class. Of course, colleges themselves decide whether or not to award credit based on AP Exam scores (most state universities and colleges do, while many of the higher-echelon schools, both state and private, do not, or require a score of 5).
Part of the reason that using these tests to "measure teacher effectiveness" is problematic is for the same reason as it would be for the FCAT. If you are comparing the AP scores of students in, let's say, Overtown or Little Haiti or Little Havana or Hialeah, who often come from parents who do not speak English, and many of whom are illiterate even in their native language, and who have not had the opportunities, resources or education-prioritizing structure at home that give so many middle-class and wealthy children a huge advantage on all standardized tests (as reflected by national data), to students in Coral Gables, or at magnet schools that "skim the cream" off so many neighborhood schools, there will obviously be a difference. This difference does not by any means indicate that the teacher is of poorer quality, or is "less effective." Anyone who has ever worked in a classroom will tell you that it is easier to get students who come in well-prepared, motivated and academically supported (and often pushed) at home than those who come in ill-prepared and who often have parents either unable to help them or who simply do not see education as a top priority and therefore do not push their children to study.
This situation, which is already apples-to-oranges (or in a Miami context, perhaps mangoes-to-coconuts), is further compounded by the fact that the new high school accountability formula, which factors participation and performance in AP classes into high school grades (along with FCAT scores and graduation rates), has already encouraged many schools, especially those with a "lower grade" (usually C, D and F schools), to push (and sometimes even force) unprepared or undermotivated students into AP classes.
Statewide, teachers have been "encouraged" (read: told) to corral as many students as possible into AP classes, regardless of whether or not we feel the students are prepared for or willing to do the work and ultimately perform well on the exam. We are often told that "regardless of whether or not they pass the exam, the students will benefit from having taken the higher-level class." In some regards, that statement might be true; on the other hand, it means that motivated or relatively high-performing students are pushed into four, five, six, sometimes even seven or eight (at eight-period block schedule schools) AP classes in one year, causing them to get overwhelmed and perform poorly on all of the exams, and sometimes in the class itself. The other unintended consequence is that when more and more AP classes are created, and filled with students who either did not want to take an AP class or are not academically prepared for the AP class, the rigor of the class is damaged. This is unfortunate but in some cases inevitable. If you have a class full of students who, well-meaning though they might be (and this is not always a given, when students are put in AP classes against their will), do not yet have the skills or knowledge required to study the material on a college level, it is ridiculous, if not impossible, to actually teach the material on a college level.
Thus, educators teaching AP classes in neighborhood schools in disadvantaged communities will now find themselves measured by the performance not just of students they would have recommended for AP classes (who already will often perform at a different level than the children of wealthier, college-educated parents who are fluent in English and prioritize education and studying), but also by the performance of students who, by any rational measure, probably should not be in an AP class at all.
For example, does it make sense to have children sitting, in the same day, in an Intensive Reading class (meaning they failed the FCAT) and an AP English class? It seems counterintuitive, yet it is a situation that those of us teaching in urban schools confront every day. There are two possible reasons for this occurring. One is that the student really should not have failed the FCAT, and that they did attests to the fallibility of that test. Another is that the student really should not be in an AP class, but has been put there, either because he asked for it (for any number of reasons: to feel "smarter," to be with his friends, because he wanted a certain teacher, etc., etc.) or because he was pushed there because he made pretty good grades in his English classes, because he was well-behaved and relatively motivated, etc.
By no logic is it a fair comparison.
Additionally, while a "value-added" formula would supposedly be used to measure teachers of FCAT classes, evaluating the teachers based on "growth" and taking into account certain factors, no such formula can really exist for AP exams. How do you measure "growth" on a test where there is no basis of comparison, since it is not tested year to year like the FCAT?
This will be a similar problem with EOCs. If a student is studying a subject for the very first time, he will not have any scores from previous years upon which to base some sort of measure of "growth." And if the solution is simply administering a pre-test in the subject area, will that really prove how effective his teacher is? If I administer a pre-test to my French I students the first week of school, which is similar to the EOC they will take at the end of the year, they will undoubtedly all fail dismally. So, with that as the basis of growth, even my most mediocre students will probably score phenomenally well on the EOC, if one is looking at growth rather than flat scores. Which could obviously work out to my advantage, if that is ultimately the way it is administered, but does not make a whole lot of sense.
Yet in my skeptical (and cynical) opinion, this is the most benign of possible outcomes, and would have the unintended consequence of too many teachers being paid too much ("too much" for the state's and district's budgets: since the goal of the new governor and of the legislature is to cut the education budget, you can be sure they are not going to put in place any plan that will result in higher costs in teacher salaries).
In order for it to work with their budget plans, they will end up having to look at flat scores on AP Exams and on EOCs. And the result will be that those of us who choose to work in more difficult schools with more troubled and disadvantaged students will be unfairly punished by lower evaluations, lower salaries and possibly losing our jobs, simply because we are working with more students who come to us less prepared, with less academic and financial support at home, and who are often less motivated (usually because they are not pushed as hard at home by parents who are less educated and who do not see education as a priority).
One further point, on that note: in her article, McGrory claims:
Studies show teacher effectiveness is the strongest predictor of student achievement.
However, this is not true, or at least is not the complete truth. Almost all reliable studies show that parents' income and education levels are the strongest predictors of student achievement. Teacher effectiveness is the biggest in-school factor. This is a very important distinction to make when we are discussing how teachers should be hired, fired and compensated.
The old: Did not address evaluating teachers in subjects such as music and art.
The new: Allows local school districts to develop tests in these areas.
Again, I find fault with this assertion that this is a difference in the old legislation and the new. Since the old legislation already called for using EOCs to evaluate teachers in all subject areas--once those tests had been developed, of course--this is not something new and improved. It is simply more of the same.
I would also take issue with the wording of the "new": let us be clear. The state is not "allowing" local school districts to develop tests in these areas; it is forcing them too, and undoubtedly forcing them to do it with money they will be expected to scrape out of their own pockets. In districts that have a surplus, this might be feasible. In districts like Miami-Dade County and Broward, where we are donor counties, putting more money into the state pot but taking back less per pupil than some small counties in the middle of the state for an area with a cost of living several times higher than those other counties, and where each new year is grimly met with the need to cut the budget either by cutting programs in schools or laying off employees, this is nothing short of sabotage. We will be mandated by the state to cut more money out of the classroom--whether through laying off employees, neglecting building safety and maintenance, using old and outdated resources, or simply chopping programs--to develop and administer tests.
And by the way, good luck creating a standardized test for physical education.
The old: Was based only on student learning gains.
The new: Also accounts for the poverty rate, attendance rate and the number of times a student has switched schools.
If they actually find an equitable way to do this, kudos to them. My hat will be off. Simply saying, "We will do this," and actually doing it in a fair manner, are two totally different things. Show me the formula you will use (and reassure me that "attendance rate" will not be my responsibility: I am not the mother of these children and I cannot force them to get out of bed in the morning and get their little rear ends into school), and we will talk.
The old: Had one salary schedule for all teachers.
The new: Has different salary schedules for teachers in critical shortage areas like math and science, or in low-income schools.
I suppose this could be viewed as an improvement. But that improvement could still amount to naught if they leave in place their flawed measurements, whether by FCAT or EOC or AP or whatever other acronyms they throw in, and if a teacher can still be fired, and even lose the ability to renew his or her certification, based on student scores. If I only intend to teach for two or three years, like most Teach for America alumni, then maybe that will sound pretty good--get paid more to teach in a low-income school. But if I plan on teaching as a career, and I know that I can lose my job (or make diddly squat) because my students do poorly on some standardized test that I not only did not write but was never allowed to look at, then no salary the state or district would actually be willing to pay me would convince me to work in a high-needs school. Sorry, but teachers are human too; we need to plan for the future like everyone else, and we want a certain level of job security like everyone else. If we think we have a better chance of keeping our jobs (and ultimately probably making more money too) by working in a school that is, well, easier to work in anyway...those of us who can, will.
The old: Did not factor in advanced degrees.
The new: Would factor in advanced degrees.
Perhaps I am slightly biased, since I have a Master degree and am currently paid more (not overwhelmingly more, but enough to feel it), but I do feel this is an improvement. I put time and effort into getting my MA, and in the process acquired teaching experience and practical experience (in my case, in the form of an exchange program in which I got to spend a year in France improving my French and my knowledge of French culture), and I feel that this without a doubt makes me a better French teacher.
Still, I will withhold applause until I get the details on exactly how, and how much, advanced degrees will be factored in.
The old: Would have had teachers working under one-year contracts.
The new: Would award three-year contracts. After each contract, school districts could choose to retain or fire a teacher, with or without cause.
Hmmm...excuse me? Was that a pause for applause? One year or three years, the new legislation still allows districts to fire teachers with or without cause. So theoretically I could be the teacher of the year at my school, have outstanding success with my students and be going above and beyond the call of duty every day, and still get fired because some principal does not like it that I am active in the teachers' union, or because I disagree with him/her on matters of school policy, or because we simply do not get along. Overall, I would say I have fantastic administrators, but based on conversations I have had with many different teachers at different schools not just in Dade County or in Florida, but around the nation, this makes me an exception, not the rule. Anyone who listens to this debate and says, "But of course no administrator would fire a good teacher, even if they had personal disagreements!" has obviously never been a teacher, or at least not long enough to see it happen (or to see it attempted). The union does not "protect bad teachers"--it protects all members' right to due process. If it is determined that there is just cause to fire the teacher, the teacher is fired. Period. But without the right to due process--which this legislation, even in its supposed "new, improved" form, would strip us of--we are once again at the mercy of administrators...and likely, of test scores.
Extending the contract from one year to three years does nothing more than add a little cushion--instead of worrying about whether we will have a job from year to year, we can worry about it once every three years. Except that with the way they plan on evaluating us based on student scores on tests that have not yet even been funded (much less written), we will probably still get to worry about it every year, since if the scores aren't great, we can probably expect to get fired at the end of the third year.
Jeb Bush is still at the reins.
Even though Jeb Bush has not been governor for three years, somehow he is still the puppetmaster in creating education policy in the state of Florida. McGrory's article attests that the "new proposal" is being crafted by the Foundation for Florida's Future, Jeb Bush's pet project in pushing for expansion of vouchers and charter schools.
Bush has been criticized mightily for using education policy to funnel money to family and friends in the standardized testing and charter school businesses.
He also opposed the 2002 Class Size Amendment, limiting the number of students per teacher in public schools, presumably because of its financial cost, and stated at the time that he had "a couple of devious plans if this thing passes." We can assume that his "devious plans" entail exactly what we see today--refusing to fund the amendment, though it is a constitutional mandate, so that districts have no choice but to cut programs, make layoffs, or pay hefty fines for non-compliance. He and his cronies hoped that this campaign of chaos would push parents to vote in favor of Amendment 8 in the 2010 election, weakening the class size amendment, but it did not succeed. (Maybe because too many people recognize that the reason for the chaos was a lack of funding from the state--not the amendment itself?)
Supposedly, the Foundation for Florida's Future (FFF--an ironic acronym, which, in my take, corresponds exactly to the grade I as an educator would give to this group) based much of its "new proposal" on the Memorandum of Understanding crafted by the Race to the Top work group convened by Charlie Crist in April.
Florida won a $700 million federal grant with its revised Race to the Top application. At the last Miami-Dade County School Board meeting, board members expressed concern that the new legislation would overstep the bounds defined by the MOU.
Further in her Herald article, McGrory states:
Half of teacher evaluations would be based on three years of student data -- such as scores on the FCATs, the new end-of-course exams, norm-reference tests or Advanced Placement tests. The system would look at student growth rather than raw scores, and would account for factors including poverty and student mobility.
Teachers' evaluations would determine at least half of their pay raises. Teachers who do not receive strong evaluations would get smaller raises, and over time the lowest performing teachers would be weeded out.
"Growth" would be difficult if not impossible to determine based on EOCs or AP tests, as I discussed at length earlier--unless the teacher is being compared to herself over three years, meaning her students' scores should rise every year--a statistic impossibility, especially when we are talking about an experienced teacher. Furthermore, the 50% mark oversteps the "no more than 30%" benchmark established by the Race to the Top MOU.
This leaves little doubt that the legislature does not really feel bound by the MOU, and is determined to pass their same agenda with minor "facelift" modifications intended to lull educators and parents into submission until it is too late.
http://www.examiner.com/dade-county-education-policy-in-miami/new-merit-pay-bill-gets-a-higher-grade-from-teachers-nobody-asked-me
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Teachers finally involved in education plan?
To me it stills seems punitive and doesn't address the real problems we are facing. -cpg
BY KATHLEEN McGRORY
kmcgrory@MiamiHerald.com
The teacher pay debate that rocked Tallahassee last spring is back.
Already, legislation is being drafted that would overhaul the way teachers are evaluated and paid, and do away with tenure.
But unlike its predecessor, which led to student sit-ins and teacher sick-outs, this bill is finding widespread support from educators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Even the teachers' unions are willing to consider it.
So far, the reaction has been warmer.
``It's a very thoughtful bill,'' said state Board of Education member Roberto Martinez. ``It creates sufficient reform, but does so in a way that's not trying to steamroll anyone.''
However, Karen Aronowitz, president of the Miami-Dade teachers union, is skeptical.
``We have merit pay programs in our schools,'' Aronowitz said. ``We've signed on to major grants to work on this together. To have it legislated from afar takes value away from the work we're doing.''
The proposed bill establishes broad guidelines for hiring, firing, evaluating and paying teachers. It allows the details to be hammered out by local school districts and unions.
Half of teacher evaluations would be based on three years of student data -- such as scores on the FCATs, the new end-of-course exams, norm-reference tests or Advanced Placement tests. The system would look at student growth rather than raw scores, and would account for factors including poverty and student mobility.
Teachers' evaluations would determine at least half of their pay raises. Teachers who do not receive strong evaluations would get smaller raises, and over time the lowest performing teachers would be weeded out.
Teachers would also be rewarded for working in high-need schools or in subject areas where there is a shortage of teachers.
In addition, high-performing teachers would get credit for advanced degrees, certifications and specializations -- a provision not included in Senate Bill 6.
Teachers already in the system would have the option to give up their tenure in exchange for the higher pay and salary incentives.
``It's critical that we get this right,'' said Rebecca Fishman Lipsey, who oversees Teach for America in Miami-Dade.
Studies show teacher effectiveness is the strongest predictor of student achievement.
In fact, improving teacher quality through pay incentives has been a key part of the White House education reform agenda.
The Obama administration set aside millions of dollars in stimulus funds for states and school districts willing to try new ways of evaluating and paying teachers.
One of the key ingredients to obtain a portion of the $4.35 billion in Race to the Top funds: basing a portion of teacher pay on student achievement.
Florida lost in its first try. But in August, Florida was named one of nine winners. Its share: $700 million.
Smith, the education commissioner, said he would like to see the state's merit pay legislation based on the Race to the Top application.
``It has support from multiple stakeholders,'' he said.
In a few weeks, Crist will be leaving office. But Gov.-elect Rick Scott's education transition team has indicated it also wants a merit pay plan.
And in an e-mail to The Miami Herald, former Gov. Bush called it ``vital for Florida to continue providing a quality education for every student and closing the achievement gap.''
So it's likely state lawmakers will revisit the issue when the Legislative session begins in March.
``We have to tweak the way we measure success,'' said state Rep. Erik Fresen, who sits on the House Education Committee.
But Ford, the head of the Florida Education Association, cautioned lawmakers against moving too quickly.
``I'm hoping they move slower than last year and provide an opportunity for people to have real and meaningful input.''
``We're open to looking at paying teachers differently,'' said Andy Ford, president of the Florida Education Association.
``It's really about how you develop the plan.''
Last spring, educators complained the state Legislature, in an effort to be seen as a leader in education reform, was cramming through changes affecting their pay without any input from them.
This time, educators, parents and union leaders have contributed to a proposed bill that would reward the state's top teachers with merit pay.
Among the differences in the bills:
The old: Known as Senate Bill 6, it was based half a teacher's evaluation on student performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.
The new: Allows end-of-course exams, Advanced Placement tests and tests developed by local school districts to be factored in, too.
The old: Did not address evaluating teachers in subjects such as music and art.
The new: Allows local school districts to develop tests in these areas.
The old: Was based only on student learning gains.
The new: Also accounts for the poverty rate, attendance rate and the number of times a student has switched schools.
The old: Had one salary schedule for all teachers.
The new: Has different salary schedules for teachers in critical shortage areas like math and science, or in low-income schools.
The old: Did not factor in advanced degrees.
The new: Would factor in advanced degrees.
The old: Would have had teachers working under one-year contracts.
The new: Would award three-year contracts. After each contract, school districts could choose to retain or fire a teacher, with or without cause.
``We really have moved a long way'' from a year ago, state Education Commissioner Eric Smith said.
Last spring, the governor's office logged more than 100,000 calls from teachers, parents and students opposing Senate Bill 6. Thousand of Miami-Dade teachers took a personal day off to protest the bill, and Broward teachers led after-school rallies. They said the bill relied too heavily on student test scores to calculate teacher pay without taking into account other factors, such as whether the teacher worked in a low-income school or with special needs students.
Even supporters of merit pay acknowledged the process to create last spring's legislation lacked collaboration and transparency.
Calling the legislation ``significantly flawed,'' Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed SB6.
But he also said he supported a performance-based pay system and urged educators and lawmakers to start over -- working together -- to develop a new plan.
Crist put together a group of teachers, superintendents, parents and union leaders, headed by Miami-Dade schools chief Alberto Carvalho, to develop a game plan everyone could support. Gov. Jeb Bush's Foundation for Florida's FUture drew upon that in crafting the new proposal.
The new legislation is still a work in progress, said Jaryn Emhof, a spokeswoman for the foundation, but a draft of the proposal is being circulated.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/25/1988680_p2/teachers-give-higher-grade-to.html
BY KATHLEEN McGRORY
kmcgrory@MiamiHerald.com
The teacher pay debate that rocked Tallahassee last spring is back.
Already, legislation is being drafted that would overhaul the way teachers are evaluated and paid, and do away with tenure.
But unlike its predecessor, which led to student sit-ins and teacher sick-outs, this bill is finding widespread support from educators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Even the teachers' unions are willing to consider it.
So far, the reaction has been warmer.
``It's a very thoughtful bill,'' said state Board of Education member Roberto Martinez. ``It creates sufficient reform, but does so in a way that's not trying to steamroll anyone.''
However, Karen Aronowitz, president of the Miami-Dade teachers union, is skeptical.
``We have merit pay programs in our schools,'' Aronowitz said. ``We've signed on to major grants to work on this together. To have it legislated from afar takes value away from the work we're doing.''
The proposed bill establishes broad guidelines for hiring, firing, evaluating and paying teachers. It allows the details to be hammered out by local school districts and unions.
Half of teacher evaluations would be based on three years of student data -- such as scores on the FCATs, the new end-of-course exams, norm-reference tests or Advanced Placement tests. The system would look at student growth rather than raw scores, and would account for factors including poverty and student mobility.
Teachers' evaluations would determine at least half of their pay raises. Teachers who do not receive strong evaluations would get smaller raises, and over time the lowest performing teachers would be weeded out.
Teachers would also be rewarded for working in high-need schools or in subject areas where there is a shortage of teachers.
In addition, high-performing teachers would get credit for advanced degrees, certifications and specializations -- a provision not included in Senate Bill 6.
Teachers already in the system would have the option to give up their tenure in exchange for the higher pay and salary incentives.
``It's critical that we get this right,'' said Rebecca Fishman Lipsey, who oversees Teach for America in Miami-Dade.
Studies show teacher effectiveness is the strongest predictor of student achievement.
In fact, improving teacher quality through pay incentives has been a key part of the White House education reform agenda.
The Obama administration set aside millions of dollars in stimulus funds for states and school districts willing to try new ways of evaluating and paying teachers.
One of the key ingredients to obtain a portion of the $4.35 billion in Race to the Top funds: basing a portion of teacher pay on student achievement.
Florida lost in its first try. But in August, Florida was named one of nine winners. Its share: $700 million.
Smith, the education commissioner, said he would like to see the state's merit pay legislation based on the Race to the Top application.
``It has support from multiple stakeholders,'' he said.
In a few weeks, Crist will be leaving office. But Gov.-elect Rick Scott's education transition team has indicated it also wants a merit pay plan.
And in an e-mail to The Miami Herald, former Gov. Bush called it ``vital for Florida to continue providing a quality education for every student and closing the achievement gap.''
So it's likely state lawmakers will revisit the issue when the Legislative session begins in March.
``We have to tweak the way we measure success,'' said state Rep. Erik Fresen, who sits on the House Education Committee.
But Ford, the head of the Florida Education Association, cautioned lawmakers against moving too quickly.
``I'm hoping they move slower than last year and provide an opportunity for people to have real and meaningful input.''
``We're open to looking at paying teachers differently,'' said Andy Ford, president of the Florida Education Association.
``It's really about how you develop the plan.''
Last spring, educators complained the state Legislature, in an effort to be seen as a leader in education reform, was cramming through changes affecting their pay without any input from them.
This time, educators, parents and union leaders have contributed to a proposed bill that would reward the state's top teachers with merit pay.
Among the differences in the bills:
The old: Known as Senate Bill 6, it was based half a teacher's evaluation on student performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.
The new: Allows end-of-course exams, Advanced Placement tests and tests developed by local school districts to be factored in, too.
The old: Did not address evaluating teachers in subjects such as music and art.
The new: Allows local school districts to develop tests in these areas.
The old: Was based only on student learning gains.
The new: Also accounts for the poverty rate, attendance rate and the number of times a student has switched schools.
The old: Had one salary schedule for all teachers.
The new: Has different salary schedules for teachers in critical shortage areas like math and science, or in low-income schools.
The old: Did not factor in advanced degrees.
The new: Would factor in advanced degrees.
The old: Would have had teachers working under one-year contracts.
The new: Would award three-year contracts. After each contract, school districts could choose to retain or fire a teacher, with or without cause.
``We really have moved a long way'' from a year ago, state Education Commissioner Eric Smith said.
Last spring, the governor's office logged more than 100,000 calls from teachers, parents and students opposing Senate Bill 6. Thousand of Miami-Dade teachers took a personal day off to protest the bill, and Broward teachers led after-school rallies. They said the bill relied too heavily on student test scores to calculate teacher pay without taking into account other factors, such as whether the teacher worked in a low-income school or with special needs students.
Even supporters of merit pay acknowledged the process to create last spring's legislation lacked collaboration and transparency.
Calling the legislation ``significantly flawed,'' Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed SB6.
But he also said he supported a performance-based pay system and urged educators and lawmakers to start over -- working together -- to develop a new plan.
Crist put together a group of teachers, superintendents, parents and union leaders, headed by Miami-Dade schools chief Alberto Carvalho, to develop a game plan everyone could support. Gov. Jeb Bush's Foundation for Florida's FUture drew upon that in crafting the new proposal.
The new legislation is still a work in progress, said Jaryn Emhof, a spokeswoman for the foundation, but a draft of the proposal is being circulated.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/25/1988680_p2/teachers-give-higher-grade-to.html
Sunday, October 10, 2010
No child left behind: the flop
As in that is what it has become
Teachers because of no child left behind are no longer given any autonomy in their classroom, must meet many more requirements then in the past, but are totally responsible for their students’ assessment score results and their job security depends on it. And yet, students’ scores are not improving in Florida!
To solve this problem, this past spring, Sen. John Thrasher tried to pass Senate Bill 6 that would reward teachers with merit pay for improved test scores. The flip side was that tenure would be eliminated and pay would be reduced for all teachers. Seniority and additional education on the teachers’ parts would no longer be included in pay schedules. Teachers in our state rallied together and worked to stop this legislation this year. But it is now returning to Florida as part of the Race to the Top (RttT) program implemented by President Obama. RttT will also continue to have extremely punitive components for schools that fail to make the mandated progress. So the battle to save public education continues.
Teachers are being attacked nationally by celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, films like “Waiting for Superman” and programs like the recent weeklong one presented by NBC “Education Nation”. Tenure is now a bad word and teachers are why schools are “failing”. Education is not a business and cannot be run like one, very few charter schools are more successful then public schools, tenure has never kept an effective administrator from removing an ineffective teacher from the classroom, and research shows that merit pay is not effective for educators. But politicians and billionaires are now dictating how public schools are run. Publishing companies are making a fortune developing tests and selling curriculum to be used to prepare the students for the tests. There is a frightening money trail that accompanies this trend that could result in public schools being eliminated and replaced by charter schools and private schools that accept vouchers from states unless it is stopped soon!
Teachers because of no child left behind are no longer given any autonomy in their classroom, must meet many more requirements then in the past, but are totally responsible for their students’ assessment score results and their job security depends on it. And yet, students’ scores are not improving in Florida!
To solve this problem, this past spring, Sen. John Thrasher tried to pass Senate Bill 6 that would reward teachers with merit pay for improved test scores. The flip side was that tenure would be eliminated and pay would be reduced for all teachers. Seniority and additional education on the teachers’ parts would no longer be included in pay schedules. Teachers in our state rallied together and worked to stop this legislation this year. But it is now returning to Florida as part of the Race to the Top (RttT) program implemented by President Obama. RttT will also continue to have extremely punitive components for schools that fail to make the mandated progress. So the battle to save public education continues.
Teachers are being attacked nationally by celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, films like “Waiting for Superman” and programs like the recent weeklong one presented by NBC “Education Nation”. Tenure is now a bad word and teachers are why schools are “failing”. Education is not a business and cannot be run like one, very few charter schools are more successful then public schools, tenure has never kept an effective administrator from removing an ineffective teacher from the classroom, and research shows that merit pay is not effective for educators. But politicians and billionaires are now dictating how public schools are run. Publishing companies are making a fortune developing tests and selling curriculum to be used to prepare the students for the tests. There is a frightening money trail that accompanies this trend that could result in public schools being eliminated and replaced by charter schools and private schools that accept vouchers from states unless it is stopped soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)