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 teacher tenure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teacher tenure. Show all posts
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Not sold on Rhee? You aren't the only one
From the St. Petersbug Times
by Jeffrey Solochek
Florida's lawmakers were starstruck.
Before them stood Michelle Rhee, the former Washington, D.C., public schools chancellor recently featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show, on a Newsweek cover and in the documentary film Waiting for Superman.
"I am here today to ask you to keep being a leader," Rhee said, urging members of two education committees to tackle one the few reforms that Florida has yet to achieve: a streamlined way to get "ineffective" teachers out of the classroom. "There is so much more to do."
Senate Pre-K-12 Committee Chairman Steve Wise called her a movie star, and even Sen. Eleanor Sobel, a more skeptical Broward Democrat, gave a nod to Rhee for "bringing new energy to the education debate."
But as he watched from the audience, the spokesman from Florida's teachers union wondered why lawmakers were listening to her. "It's a little difficult to understand why she is given rock star status," said Mark Pudlow of the Florida Education Association.
Sure, Rhee might have the ear of the governor and the praise of the president. Sure, Rhee has made national headlines pushing through controversial measures relating to teacher tenure, evaluations and salaries in D.C.
But Pudlow noted that Washington, D.C., schools score at the bottom of the national Education Week Quality Counts ranking, while Florida rates close to the top. He observed that some of Rhee's controversial efforts to fire "ineffective" teachers have been overturned by an arbitrator after the Washington Teachers Union fought the effort tooth and nail.
Valid concerns, said Rhee, an unpaid, informal adviser to Florida Gov. Rick Scott. She suggested looking through a different lens for some perspective.
"Over the three years that I was there, we saw really record gains in academic achievement on the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) examination," she said. "We went from being last in the entire nation to leading the entire nation in gains in both reading and math at both the fourth- and eighth-grade levels. And we were the only jurisdiction in the entire country in which every single subgroup of children improved their academic standing."
The 75,000-student district still isn't the best, she acknowledged. Far from it, in fact. But Rhee proposed that the gains that D.C. schools made might be replicated if other school systems adopt some of the "drastic changes" that she pushed through.
Her new national organization, Students First, seeks to get states to adopt similar changes. Rhee has made presentations to leaders in New Jersey and Indiana about these efforts, and she headed to Atlanta right after her Tallahassee stop to make a pitch to Georgia lawmakers.
But she sees Florida as the logical leader for altering the teacher contract landscape, she said, because of its history of adopting school accountability measures and the willingness of its leaders to take on the tough challenges that lie ahead. She credited former Gov. Jeb Bush — whom she has met with — for starting the ball rolling, and current Gov. Scott for taking the next step.
Some of Rhee's points to Florida lawmakers last week:
• End the practice of relying on seniority to determine which teachers stay and go during layoffs.
• Reduce the length of time low-performing teachers get to improve, so children's education is not wasted.
• Separate teacher evaluations from the collective bargaining process.
• Eliminate "tenure" and related systems.
House Rep. K-20 competitiveness subcommittee Chairman Erik Fresen thanked Rhee for creating a national blueprint for education reform.
"We have to start treating teaching as a profession," Fresen said.
Some observers question whether Rhee's approach does that at all.
Rhee has endured much criticism for her tough approach to the issue, where she didn't always wait for everyone to join forces with her before forging ahead. Some have contrasted her with Hillsborough County superintendent MaryEllen Elia, who is attempting to change the face of teacher evaluation with the local teachers union on board.
Richard Whitmire, a former USA Today editorial writer who wrote the Rhee biography The Bee Eater, said Rhee made things happen in a district that hadn't moved much before her tenure. Her relentless push for teacher quality won devoted followers, he said, but also had its fallout.
"The pushback that sparked, especially around firing teachers, was the biggest reason Adrian Fenty lost his re-election bid as mayor and Rhee had to step down," Whitmire said.
That's a lesson that Florida could draw from, Rhee said, acknowledging her own failure to communicate well with the public about her efforts.
"I didn't do as good a job as I needed to, to proactively go out to the great teachers and say, 'We're not talking about you. What I need you to do is stay. We want to recognize what you are doing. It's so important,' " she said. "You have to be careful not to send a message that you are blaming teachers or that you don't think teachers are good."
In fact, she said, teachers are critically important to the success of any effort to improve education. The strong ones want the weak ones out of their schools, Rhee related, and students deserve nothing less.
Wise stressed this point just before his committee passed its "teacher quality" bill on a unanimous, bipartisan vote.
"We are not here to punish teachers," Wise said, adding that he wants to hear from more teachers, as well as parents and others in order to improve the measure before it gets to a final vote.
Nathan Saunders, president of the Washington Teachers Union, said Florida lawmakers should think twice about heading down D.C.'s path. The full costs of Rhee's tenure have yet to be borne out, he said, but already they have begun to arise in the form of deficits and back pay for improperly fired teachers.
Boiled down, Saunders had one simple message for Florida lawmakers: "Florida should not be listening to Michelle Rhee."
Jeffrey S. Solochek can be reached at solochek@sptimes.com or (813) 909-4614. For more education news, visit the Gradebook at www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/not-everyones-sold-on-michelle-rhee-gov-scotts-education-adviser/1151311
by Jeffrey Solochek
Florida's lawmakers were starstruck.
Before them stood Michelle Rhee, the former Washington, D.C., public schools chancellor recently featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show, on a Newsweek cover and in the documentary film Waiting for Superman.
"I am here today to ask you to keep being a leader," Rhee said, urging members of two education committees to tackle one the few reforms that Florida has yet to achieve: a streamlined way to get "ineffective" teachers out of the classroom. "There is so much more to do."
Senate Pre-K-12 Committee Chairman Steve Wise called her a movie star, and even Sen. Eleanor Sobel, a more skeptical Broward Democrat, gave a nod to Rhee for "bringing new energy to the education debate."
But as he watched from the audience, the spokesman from Florida's teachers union wondered why lawmakers were listening to her. "It's a little difficult to understand why she is given rock star status," said Mark Pudlow of the Florida Education Association.
Sure, Rhee might have the ear of the governor and the praise of the president. Sure, Rhee has made national headlines pushing through controversial measures relating to teacher tenure, evaluations and salaries in D.C.
But Pudlow noted that Washington, D.C., schools score at the bottom of the national Education Week Quality Counts ranking, while Florida rates close to the top. He observed that some of Rhee's controversial efforts to fire "ineffective" teachers have been overturned by an arbitrator after the Washington Teachers Union fought the effort tooth and nail.
Valid concerns, said Rhee, an unpaid, informal adviser to Florida Gov. Rick Scott. She suggested looking through a different lens for some perspective.
"Over the three years that I was there, we saw really record gains in academic achievement on the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) examination," she said. "We went from being last in the entire nation to leading the entire nation in gains in both reading and math at both the fourth- and eighth-grade levels. And we were the only jurisdiction in the entire country in which every single subgroup of children improved their academic standing."
The 75,000-student district still isn't the best, she acknowledged. Far from it, in fact. But Rhee proposed that the gains that D.C. schools made might be replicated if other school systems adopt some of the "drastic changes" that she pushed through.
Her new national organization, Students First, seeks to get states to adopt similar changes. Rhee has made presentations to leaders in New Jersey and Indiana about these efforts, and she headed to Atlanta right after her Tallahassee stop to make a pitch to Georgia lawmakers.
But she sees Florida as the logical leader for altering the teacher contract landscape, she said, because of its history of adopting school accountability measures and the willingness of its leaders to take on the tough challenges that lie ahead. She credited former Gov. Jeb Bush — whom she has met with — for starting the ball rolling, and current Gov. Scott for taking the next step.
Some of Rhee's points to Florida lawmakers last week:
• End the practice of relying on seniority to determine which teachers stay and go during layoffs.
• Reduce the length of time low-performing teachers get to improve, so children's education is not wasted.
• Separate teacher evaluations from the collective bargaining process.
• Eliminate "tenure" and related systems.
House Rep. K-20 competitiveness subcommittee Chairman Erik Fresen thanked Rhee for creating a national blueprint for education reform.
"We have to start treating teaching as a profession," Fresen said.
Some observers question whether Rhee's approach does that at all.
Rhee has endured much criticism for her tough approach to the issue, where she didn't always wait for everyone to join forces with her before forging ahead. Some have contrasted her with Hillsborough County superintendent MaryEllen Elia, who is attempting to change the face of teacher evaluation with the local teachers union on board.
Richard Whitmire, a former USA Today editorial writer who wrote the Rhee biography The Bee Eater, said Rhee made things happen in a district that hadn't moved much before her tenure. Her relentless push for teacher quality won devoted followers, he said, but also had its fallout.
"The pushback that sparked, especially around firing teachers, was the biggest reason Adrian Fenty lost his re-election bid as mayor and Rhee had to step down," Whitmire said.
That's a lesson that Florida could draw from, Rhee said, acknowledging her own failure to communicate well with the public about her efforts.
"I didn't do as good a job as I needed to, to proactively go out to the great teachers and say, 'We're not talking about you. What I need you to do is stay. We want to recognize what you are doing. It's so important,' " she said. "You have to be careful not to send a message that you are blaming teachers or that you don't think teachers are good."
In fact, she said, teachers are critically important to the success of any effort to improve education. The strong ones want the weak ones out of their schools, Rhee related, and students deserve nothing less.
Wise stressed this point just before his committee passed its "teacher quality" bill on a unanimous, bipartisan vote.
"We are not here to punish teachers," Wise said, adding that he wants to hear from more teachers, as well as parents and others in order to improve the measure before it gets to a final vote.
Nathan Saunders, president of the Washington Teachers Union, said Florida lawmakers should think twice about heading down D.C.'s path. The full costs of Rhee's tenure have yet to be borne out, he said, but already they have begun to arise in the form of deficits and back pay for improperly fired teachers.
Boiled down, Saunders had one simple message for Florida lawmakers: "Florida should not be listening to Michelle Rhee."
Jeffrey S. Solochek can be reached at solochek@sptimes.com or (813) 909-4614. For more education news, visit the Gradebook at www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/not-everyones-sold-on-michelle-rhee-gov-scotts-education-adviser/1151311
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Hillsborough exempt from reforms
From TBO.com
by Sherri Ackerman and Elaine Silerstrint
TAMPA - It looks like Hillsborough County teachers will once again dodge a proposed state law to end tenure and tie their pay strictly to performance.
That's because Hillsborough stands alone among Florida's 67 counties with a special act that protects the practice of tenure, which grants employment protections to teachers who reach a level of seniority.
Two other counties enjoy that protection, too, but it's under challenge. Not in Hillsborough. The reason: Hillsborough is at least a year ahead of the rest of Florida on key education reforms, said state Sen. Steve Wise, an education leader in the Senate.
Wise, a Jacksonville Republican, has introduced a bill that would subject all Florida school districts to a plan Hillsborough created, a $205 million overhaul of the way teachers are hired, trained, evaluated and paid.
The Hillsborough County district's seven-year plan is funded by a historic $100 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
"Hillsborough is going to be exempt because they have the Gates money," said Wise, chairman of the Senate's Pre-K-12 Education Committee. "They're doing the research. We believe what they're doing is the right direction to go."
So much so, Wise said, that the district will serve as a model for the state, "with a few minor exceptions."
* * * * *
It's too early to tell what Wise's Senate Bill 736 will look like once it wends its way through the Senate and House. The bill got its first thumbs-up Thursday with a 3-0 vote by the Senate Pre-K-12 committee.
But Hillsborough school officials say they are pleased it allows the district to continue its work. They also are cautious about their unique exemption.
"This is the first draft of his bill and we certainly hope that will remain," David Steele, the district's chief information and technology officer and project director of the Gates grant, wrote in an e-mail to the Tribune.
Steele is concerned the bill is heavy on accountability of teachers but light on helping them succeed.
"Our evaluation system clearly has that mentoring piece for a reason," Steele said. "The district must ensure that teachers have the supports necessary to be successful."
Wise's bill is undergoing changes even before the Legislature convenes March 8 for its 2011 session. Here are some highlights of a recent version:
•School districts and the education department would create new evaluations and a pay scale that, by 2014, would be linked to student learning gains.
•Teachers would receive one of four ratings: highly effective, effective, needs improvement or developing, and unsatisfactory.
•Fifty percent of the evaluation would be based on student performance over a three-year period. The rest would rely on best practices and professional responsibilities.
•Parents would participate in teacher evaluations.
•Evaluations would factor-in student attendance, disciplinary records, disabilities and English language proficiency.
•Parents would be notified if their child's teacher is rated unsatisfactory three consecutive years or more.
Hillsborough's evaluation system is similar, except that by 2013, student performance will account for 40 percent of the overall review.
The remaining 60 percent will be divided equally between assessments by principals and by peers or mentors, who are assigned to observe and work with each teacher.
* * * * *
The Hillsborough County school district was among the first in Florida to participate in the state's Merit Award Program, which offers financial rewards for teachers whose students have grown academically.
Originally, teacher performance levels were tied to a year's worth of student gains. Under the Gates plan, that measurement, eventually, will be stretched over three years.
In Hillsborough, education leaders are considering whether to include input from parents and students on future teacher evaluations.
"The logistics of including parents/students are difficult," Steele wrote. "I think they may write the bill thinking of a parent evaluating 'a' teacher."
In reality, he said, even elementary students have three to four teachers and a high school student has about 10.
"A parent with two high school students would have a difficult time evaluating 18 to 22 teachers, having never observed a lesson," Steele said.
Wise's bill, if approved, also would phase out tenure.
Teachers hired on or after July 1 would no longer be offered professional service contracts or tenure. Instead, they would receive a probationary contract and at least two evaluations the first year, then an annual contract that the district could choose to renew or not renew without cause.
No annual contract would be given if a teacher received two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, two unsatisfactory evaluations in a three-year period, or three "needs improvement" evaluations in a five-year period.
Current teachers and school administrators can choose to keep the salary schedule they have now or opt to participate in the new one. The new system allows them to earn more money faster. But they can't change their minds once they choose.
* * * * *
Teachers who have tenure now can keep it, but Wise's proposal, weakens the protection.
Tenured teachers have always faced dismissal for "just cause," which includes admitting guilt of a crime. Under Wise's bill, two years of consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations would be considered a "just cause."
Some critics argue tenure protects bad teachers because their contracts are automatically renewed unless a superintendent charges them with unsatisfactory performance.
According to one legislative analysis, during the past two years in Florida, fewer than 1 percent of classroom teachers received an unsatisfactory evaluation.
Firing them can take months if not years and can be costly for districts.
Proponents of the practice say tenure isn't the problem.
"It's not the impediment to identify and get rid of an ineffective teacher," said Jean Clements, president of the Hillsborough Classroom Teachers Association.
Tenure merely ensures that the process of removing a teacher is fair, say supporters, who worry that without protections, the highest-paid teachers could be laid off to save money.
"What is important is the whole way that we support teachers," Clements said. "How we reflect on our practice, how to improve, how to see where to get better."
Clements has worked closely with Hillsborough school administrators and says tenure in the district will remain intact — at least for now.
Hillsborough County has had a special tenure act since 1941. The Legislature has reaffirmed it since then. S.B. 736 makes note of the special act as well as two others, in Volusia and Duval counties. Hillsborough's would be upheld, but the latter two would be repealed.
Hillsborough teachers can apply for tenure after three years as long as evaluations show they are effective in the classroom. District officials have said they can extend the probationary period to four years to weed out poor performers if necessary.
* * * * *
Wise's proposal reintroduces some provisions of Senate Bill 6, a tenure-killing act adopted by the Legislature in its 2010 session but vetoed by Gov. Charlie Crist.
The new bill, however, takes a different tack.
Titled the "Race to the Top for Student Success Act," it takes its name from the federal Race To The Top program, in which Florida won a $700,000 grant after agreeing to many of the reforms outlined in Wise's bill.
Also, Wise and other committee members called for input from teachers, administrators, union leaders and others — something that didn't happen with S.B. 6. Teachers across the state rallied for its defeat.
But like its predecessor, S.B. 736 doesn't clearly define how to measure student learning gains for teachers in courses harder to quantify. These include art, music and special education.
The issue is of special concern to Gov. Rick Scott, who says his daughter is a special education teacher.
Hillsborough brought in experts from the University of Wisconsin to address this challenge with "value-added" measurements, Steele said. It's a work in progress, but the district is on track to roll out those evaluations by Aug. 31, he said.
The fear of value-added measurements is that if they don't work, they will ultimately harm the profession.
"Don't screw it up," Sarasota Classified Teachers Association President Pat Gardner warned Wise and the senate education committee Wednesday in Tallahassee. "If you evaluate teachers with value-added tables that don't work, you're going to lose the best teachers.
"And they won't come back," she said. "Everybody out there will know, don't go to Florida."
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/feb/12/MENEWSO1-teacher-tenure-appears-safe-in-hillsborou/news-breaking/
by Sherri Ackerman and Elaine Silerstrint
TAMPA - It looks like Hillsborough County teachers will once again dodge a proposed state law to end tenure and tie their pay strictly to performance.
That's because Hillsborough stands alone among Florida's 67 counties with a special act that protects the practice of tenure, which grants employment protections to teachers who reach a level of seniority.
Two other counties enjoy that protection, too, but it's under challenge. Not in Hillsborough. The reason: Hillsborough is at least a year ahead of the rest of Florida on key education reforms, said state Sen. Steve Wise, an education leader in the Senate.
Wise, a Jacksonville Republican, has introduced a bill that would subject all Florida school districts to a plan Hillsborough created, a $205 million overhaul of the way teachers are hired, trained, evaluated and paid.
The Hillsborough County district's seven-year plan is funded by a historic $100 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
"Hillsborough is going to be exempt because they have the Gates money," said Wise, chairman of the Senate's Pre-K-12 Education Committee. "They're doing the research. We believe what they're doing is the right direction to go."
So much so, Wise said, that the district will serve as a model for the state, "with a few minor exceptions."
* * * * *
It's too early to tell what Wise's Senate Bill 736 will look like once it wends its way through the Senate and House. The bill got its first thumbs-up Thursday with a 3-0 vote by the Senate Pre-K-12 committee.
But Hillsborough school officials say they are pleased it allows the district to continue its work. They also are cautious about their unique exemption.
"This is the first draft of his bill and we certainly hope that will remain," David Steele, the district's chief information and technology officer and project director of the Gates grant, wrote in an e-mail to the Tribune.
Steele is concerned the bill is heavy on accountability of teachers but light on helping them succeed.
"Our evaluation system clearly has that mentoring piece for a reason," Steele said. "The district must ensure that teachers have the supports necessary to be successful."
Wise's bill is undergoing changes even before the Legislature convenes March 8 for its 2011 session. Here are some highlights of a recent version:
•School districts and the education department would create new evaluations and a pay scale that, by 2014, would be linked to student learning gains.
•Teachers would receive one of four ratings: highly effective, effective, needs improvement or developing, and unsatisfactory.
•Fifty percent of the evaluation would be based on student performance over a three-year period. The rest would rely on best practices and professional responsibilities.
•Parents would participate in teacher evaluations.
•Evaluations would factor-in student attendance, disciplinary records, disabilities and English language proficiency.
•Parents would be notified if their child's teacher is rated unsatisfactory three consecutive years or more.
Hillsborough's evaluation system is similar, except that by 2013, student performance will account for 40 percent of the overall review.
The remaining 60 percent will be divided equally between assessments by principals and by peers or mentors, who are assigned to observe and work with each teacher.
* * * * *
The Hillsborough County school district was among the first in Florida to participate in the state's Merit Award Program, which offers financial rewards for teachers whose students have grown academically.
Originally, teacher performance levels were tied to a year's worth of student gains. Under the Gates plan, that measurement, eventually, will be stretched over three years.
In Hillsborough, education leaders are considering whether to include input from parents and students on future teacher evaluations.
"The logistics of including parents/students are difficult," Steele wrote. "I think they may write the bill thinking of a parent evaluating 'a' teacher."
In reality, he said, even elementary students have three to four teachers and a high school student has about 10.
"A parent with two high school students would have a difficult time evaluating 18 to 22 teachers, having never observed a lesson," Steele said.
Wise's bill, if approved, also would phase out tenure.
Teachers hired on or after July 1 would no longer be offered professional service contracts or tenure. Instead, they would receive a probationary contract and at least two evaluations the first year, then an annual contract that the district could choose to renew or not renew without cause.
No annual contract would be given if a teacher received two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, two unsatisfactory evaluations in a three-year period, or three "needs improvement" evaluations in a five-year period.
Current teachers and school administrators can choose to keep the salary schedule they have now or opt to participate in the new one. The new system allows them to earn more money faster. But they can't change their minds once they choose.
* * * * *
Teachers who have tenure now can keep it, but Wise's proposal, weakens the protection.
Tenured teachers have always faced dismissal for "just cause," which includes admitting guilt of a crime. Under Wise's bill, two years of consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations would be considered a "just cause."
Some critics argue tenure protects bad teachers because their contracts are automatically renewed unless a superintendent charges them with unsatisfactory performance.
According to one legislative analysis, during the past two years in Florida, fewer than 1 percent of classroom teachers received an unsatisfactory evaluation.
Firing them can take months if not years and can be costly for districts.
Proponents of the practice say tenure isn't the problem.
"It's not the impediment to identify and get rid of an ineffective teacher," said Jean Clements, president of the Hillsborough Classroom Teachers Association.
Tenure merely ensures that the process of removing a teacher is fair, say supporters, who worry that without protections, the highest-paid teachers could be laid off to save money.
"What is important is the whole way that we support teachers," Clements said. "How we reflect on our practice, how to improve, how to see where to get better."
Clements has worked closely with Hillsborough school administrators and says tenure in the district will remain intact — at least for now.
Hillsborough County has had a special tenure act since 1941. The Legislature has reaffirmed it since then. S.B. 736 makes note of the special act as well as two others, in Volusia and Duval counties. Hillsborough's would be upheld, but the latter two would be repealed.
Hillsborough teachers can apply for tenure after three years as long as evaluations show they are effective in the classroom. District officials have said they can extend the probationary period to four years to weed out poor performers if necessary.
* * * * *
Wise's proposal reintroduces some provisions of Senate Bill 6, a tenure-killing act adopted by the Legislature in its 2010 session but vetoed by Gov. Charlie Crist.
The new bill, however, takes a different tack.
Titled the "Race to the Top for Student Success Act," it takes its name from the federal Race To The Top program, in which Florida won a $700,000 grant after agreeing to many of the reforms outlined in Wise's bill.
Also, Wise and other committee members called for input from teachers, administrators, union leaders and others — something that didn't happen with S.B. 6. Teachers across the state rallied for its defeat.
But like its predecessor, S.B. 736 doesn't clearly define how to measure student learning gains for teachers in courses harder to quantify. These include art, music and special education.
The issue is of special concern to Gov. Rick Scott, who says his daughter is a special education teacher.
Hillsborough brought in experts from the University of Wisconsin to address this challenge with "value-added" measurements, Steele said. It's a work in progress, but the district is on track to roll out those evaluations by Aug. 31, he said.
The fear of value-added measurements is that if they don't work, they will ultimately harm the profession.
"Don't screw it up," Sarasota Classified Teachers Association President Pat Gardner warned Wise and the senate education committee Wednesday in Tallahassee. "If you evaluate teachers with value-added tables that don't work, you're going to lose the best teachers.
"And they won't come back," she said. "Everybody out there will know, don't go to Florida."
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/feb/12/MENEWSO1-teacher-tenure-appears-safe-in-hillsborou/news-breaking/
Friday, February 11, 2011
The Florida Legislature and their apparent distain for teachers
The Legislature greets controversial former D.C. Education Chancellor as if she is a hero, while most superintendants and teachers in Florida can’t get their phone calls returned or e-mails read. They listen intently to her as she spouts her anti-teacher rhetoric even though it is based on unfounded data or practice because it reaffirms what they already want to believe and do.
Jacksonville’s own Steven Wise, no friend to public education is leading the charge for Ms. Rhee’s education deforms. He says he worked to avoid the problems that Senate Bill Six had last year but after listening to his glowing praise of Rhee (he called her a movie star) who he had address several different sessions of the legislature and the lip service he gave to teachers, who got a few hours of committee time, it is hard to imagine that he didn’t already have his mind made up.
Before the legislature runs head long into dramatically altering the way teachers are paid, instead of just listening to Rhee’s demagoguery the legislature should do some research. Study after study has said merit pay based solely on testing does not identify the best teachers. It shows what teacher got the luck of the draw. It doesn’t work.
The legislature is also seeking to strip away from teachers what they mockingly call tenure but what is actually due process. Here in Jacksonville that means that after three years of service teachers can’t just be fired for any reason, which is what could happen in the future if Rhee and the legislature get their way.
Then finally before she took her limo to her private jet she also endorsed the proposed 5% pay cut to be given to all teachers, not the best paid group to begin with, to pay for their pensions. I get it we need pension reform but in this economy when many teachers are little more than pay check to pay check, is the right thing to do to take away five percent of their money. The millionaires that make up the legislature seem to think this is acceptable.
We want reforms, okay, but let’s make our reforms based on sound research not because a woman who was on Oprah thinks it is a good idea.
We want to streamline the process to get rid of bad teachers let’s do it but let’s not strip the good teachers of their right to due process and let's insist that principals and districts use the procedures in place the meantime.
We want pension reform, okay, let’s roll it out slowly so we don't hurt the thousands of teachers here in the state to much. Then at the same time lets close the tax loopholes which which only benefit a select few that see the Florida coffers looted of billions.
It’s hard to imagine the Florida legislature getting it more wrong, it is like the purposely want to hurt teachers and through extension public schools and children. Instead they should be working with teachers to find out what they need to help our children.
Please let your legislator know that, not punishing teachers, is what you want them to do.
Chris Guerrieri
School Teacher
Jacksonville’s own Steven Wise, no friend to public education is leading the charge for Ms. Rhee’s education deforms. He says he worked to avoid the problems that Senate Bill Six had last year but after listening to his glowing praise of Rhee (he called her a movie star) who he had address several different sessions of the legislature and the lip service he gave to teachers, who got a few hours of committee time, it is hard to imagine that he didn’t already have his mind made up.
Before the legislature runs head long into dramatically altering the way teachers are paid, instead of just listening to Rhee’s demagoguery the legislature should do some research. Study after study has said merit pay based solely on testing does not identify the best teachers. It shows what teacher got the luck of the draw. It doesn’t work.
The legislature is also seeking to strip away from teachers what they mockingly call tenure but what is actually due process. Here in Jacksonville that means that after three years of service teachers can’t just be fired for any reason, which is what could happen in the future if Rhee and the legislature get their way.
Then finally before she took her limo to her private jet she also endorsed the proposed 5% pay cut to be given to all teachers, not the best paid group to begin with, to pay for their pensions. I get it we need pension reform but in this economy when many teachers are little more than pay check to pay check, is the right thing to do to take away five percent of their money. The millionaires that make up the legislature seem to think this is acceptable.
We want reforms, okay, but let’s make our reforms based on sound research not because a woman who was on Oprah thinks it is a good idea.
We want to streamline the process to get rid of bad teachers let’s do it but let’s not strip the good teachers of their right to due process and let's insist that principals and districts use the procedures in place the meantime.
We want pension reform, okay, let’s roll it out slowly so we don't hurt the thousands of teachers here in the state to much. Then at the same time lets close the tax loopholes which which only benefit a select few that see the Florida coffers looted of billions.
It’s hard to imagine the Florida legislature getting it more wrong, it is like the purposely want to hurt teachers and through extension public schools and children. Instead they should be working with teachers to find out what they need to help our children.
Please let your legislator know that, not punishing teachers, is what you want them to do.
Chris Guerrieri
School Teacher
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Unlike Florida, Wyoming not afraid of Teacher Due Process
Teachers do not have tenure, they have the right to due process which they only earn after proving themselves for thee years. The Florida Legislature is seeking to strip that protection away. -cpg
From the Trib,com
by Joan Barron
CHEYENNE -- After a lively debate, the Wyoming Senate on Tuesday killed a bill on third reading that would have repealed teacher tenure.
While Senate File 52 was defeated by a 28-12 vote, the Senate went on to advance two education and teacher accountability bills.
Senate File 70, education accountability, and Senate File 146, teacher accountability, will come up for third and final Senate votes today.
Supporters of repealing teacher tenure, or continuing-contract status, argued that it is too difficult now to get rid of ineffective teachers who may be partly to blame for subpar student performance scores in a K-12 system that costs the state $1.5 billion per year and pays teachers an average of nearly $59,000 per year.
Opponents said repealing the protection for teachers would discourage students from entering the profession. They also said the move would mean teachers would avoid innovation or doing anything creative that could jeopardize their jobs.
Sen. Hank Coe, R-Cody, the bill's sponsor, said opponents of the bill have been hearing from one side while he believes that 79 to 80 percent of people in the state support getting rid of tenure.
One opponent of the bill, Sen. Phil Nicholas, R-Laramie, said it would not have improved the quality of teachers or education.
If the legislators are serious about modifying teacher contracts, they should order an appropriation and pay each teacher $3,000 to become an "at-will" employee, he said.
Nicholas questioned whether the University of Wyoming's College of Education was rigorous enough. He noted that UW students who major in education have some of the lowest ACT scores on campus but graduate from the College of Education with the highest grade-point averages.
This either means the College of Education is turning students into "geniuses" or there is a "lack of rigor" in the department, Nicholas said.
Majority Floor Leader Tony Ross, R-Cheyenne, argued that the Legislature could be exposing itself to a rash of lawsuits if it were to remove the teacher tenure protection. He said the action could be construed by the courts as taking a property right without due process.
Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, said he worked without tenure as an economist for a large company, got along with other employees and did not fear upper management.
"It really does work out there in the real world," Case said.
Sen. Larry Hicks, R-Baggs, said the senators who opposed the bill were arguing for the status quo, but the status quo was not helping the school children.
Sen. John Hastert, D-Green River, said the bill would "stifle teachers."
The state, he said, already has a system to get rid of bad teachers.
"This bill is just punitive," said Sen. John Schiffer, R-Kaycee.
"The debate should be about quality teaching," Schiffer said. "This bill is about trying to hammer somebody."
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, said the bill had the effect of giving more power to principals and administrators -- a group that also had "bad applies" and was no less accountable for student performance than teachers.
Coe succeeded in delaying the effective date of the bill until July1, 2012. During the interval, he said, work could begin setting up the proposed new accountability programs and clearing up any problems with the tenure repeal bill.
But efforts to save the bill failed.
After the vote, Kathryn Valido, president of the Wyoming Education Association, said the debate was thoughtful "and the senators made a good decision."
"They have options on the floor that offer great accountability and they decided this wasn't the best option," she said after the vote.
The senators, she said, looked at all the unintended consequences of the bill, not just the potential for litigation.
Her organization, she said, likes Senate File 46, the Teacher Accountability Act, because it clearly defines how accountability is measured.
"And that is with good teacher evaluation," Valido said. "That's what we always said we wanted -- good, strong teacher evaluation."
She said the current system of terminating poor teachers has been been in place for 53 years and is effective.
The WEA has been on record of supporting Senate File 70, the Education Accountability Act, from the start, she said.
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_b3224066-7ed9-529d-9bb8-1e25733795dc.html
From the Trib,com
by Joan Barron
CHEYENNE -- After a lively debate, the Wyoming Senate on Tuesday killed a bill on third reading that would have repealed teacher tenure.
While Senate File 52 was defeated by a 28-12 vote, the Senate went on to advance two education and teacher accountability bills.
Senate File 70, education accountability, and Senate File 146, teacher accountability, will come up for third and final Senate votes today.
Supporters of repealing teacher tenure, or continuing-contract status, argued that it is too difficult now to get rid of ineffective teachers who may be partly to blame for subpar student performance scores in a K-12 system that costs the state $1.5 billion per year and pays teachers an average of nearly $59,000 per year.
Opponents said repealing the protection for teachers would discourage students from entering the profession. They also said the move would mean teachers would avoid innovation or doing anything creative that could jeopardize their jobs.
Sen. Hank Coe, R-Cody, the bill's sponsor, said opponents of the bill have been hearing from one side while he believes that 79 to 80 percent of people in the state support getting rid of tenure.
One opponent of the bill, Sen. Phil Nicholas, R-Laramie, said it would not have improved the quality of teachers or education.
If the legislators are serious about modifying teacher contracts, they should order an appropriation and pay each teacher $3,000 to become an "at-will" employee, he said.
Nicholas questioned whether the University of Wyoming's College of Education was rigorous enough. He noted that UW students who major in education have some of the lowest ACT scores on campus but graduate from the College of Education with the highest grade-point averages.
This either means the College of Education is turning students into "geniuses" or there is a "lack of rigor" in the department, Nicholas said.
Majority Floor Leader Tony Ross, R-Cheyenne, argued that the Legislature could be exposing itself to a rash of lawsuits if it were to remove the teacher tenure protection. He said the action could be construed by the courts as taking a property right without due process.
Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, said he worked without tenure as an economist for a large company, got along with other employees and did not fear upper management.
"It really does work out there in the real world," Case said.
Sen. Larry Hicks, R-Baggs, said the senators who opposed the bill were arguing for the status quo, but the status quo was not helping the school children.
Sen. John Hastert, D-Green River, said the bill would "stifle teachers."
The state, he said, already has a system to get rid of bad teachers.
"This bill is just punitive," said Sen. John Schiffer, R-Kaycee.
"The debate should be about quality teaching," Schiffer said. "This bill is about trying to hammer somebody."
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, said the bill had the effect of giving more power to principals and administrators -- a group that also had "bad applies" and was no less accountable for student performance than teachers.
Coe succeeded in delaying the effective date of the bill until July1, 2012. During the interval, he said, work could begin setting up the proposed new accountability programs and clearing up any problems with the tenure repeal bill.
But efforts to save the bill failed.
After the vote, Kathryn Valido, president of the Wyoming Education Association, said the debate was thoughtful "and the senators made a good decision."
"They have options on the floor that offer great accountability and they decided this wasn't the best option," she said after the vote.
The senators, she said, looked at all the unintended consequences of the bill, not just the potential for litigation.
Her organization, she said, likes Senate File 46, the Teacher Accountability Act, because it clearly defines how accountability is measured.
"And that is with good teacher evaluation," Valido said. "That's what we always said we wanted -- good, strong teacher evaluation."
She said the current system of terminating poor teachers has been been in place for 53 years and is effective.
The WEA has been on record of supporting Senate File 70, the Education Accountability Act, from the start, she said.
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_b3224066-7ed9-529d-9bb8-1e25733795dc.html
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Michelle Rhee's resume is tainted
Not only does she support reforms that aren't proven to work, merit pay and high stakes testing, and seeks to end basic teacher protections but she inflated her resume claiming her kids made gains they didn't. This is the person our governor and Steven Wise are turning to for advice. As far as I can see her only true talent is in self-promotion. Citizens of Florida you should really be outraged and concerned.
Check out the link below to GF Brandenbergs blog to see how her kids actualy did.
http://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/the-rhee-miracle-examined-again-by-cohort/
Check out the link below to GF Brandenbergs blog to see how her kids actualy did.
http://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/the-rhee-miracle-examined-again-by-cohort/
Florida education reforms punitive not helpful
From the Hiffington Post
by Rita Solnet
I summarized Florida's Education Summit yesterday indicating that the event may have moved us a step forward towards genuine dialogue on education reform. We are certainly better off than if the summit never occurred!
What we haven't looked at -- as a state or nation -- is the big picture on some of these proposed reforms. Let's take a step back and away from the intense debate and ask this question:
Who are these reform initiatives really intended for?
The triumvirate of reforms being aggressively pushed right now are: 1) ending teacher tenure; 2) merit pay based on standardized test scores; and, 3) closing schools/firing staffs.
1) How will ending a teacher's right to due process (consistently mischaracterized as lifetime employment) help to improve the quality of education for children? Short-termers will teach without mentors or seasoned teachers to assist them? Who will you attract to the teaching profession when due process is gone? Corporate America has due process with upper management levels on day one of employment.
2) Merit pay will merely ratchet up the stakes surrounding standardized tests even more. High stakes on tests -- your pay or job riding on one test -- increase the dependency on mind-numbing bubble tests. That doesn't enrich the curriculum. In fact, it narrows it and creates more weeks of test prep, drill and practice.
3) How does closing neighborhood schools help improve the quality of education? Even when the handful of a few good charters acquire rights to open up, many children whose English is a second language or who are dubbed "hard to teach" are left in the dust of the closed school. That's reality versus rhetoric, Real world versus propaganda.
None of the reforms being touted and legislated in some states will truly enhance the quality of education. Isn't that what we set out to accomplish? When, where and why did we take a wrong turn?
Instead, this grand illusion of three reforms impedes improvement to public education. Hidden under the smokescreen of "tough love" reforms, these initiatives are destroying public education in our nation. Celebrities signed on to this front and the media bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Let's call a charade, a charade.
These reforms are specifically intended to acquire power or control over unions. Some may think that's the right fight. Some may think that's the wrong fight. But many will agree it's being played out in the wrong ring -- the classroom. The children of our nation, particularly in impoverished areas, are the ones being sucker punched.
Take your fight outside of the classroom! Settle it across a negotiation table or in a conference room or challenge each other to duels. Take a step back and realize that's what this has been reduced to. Then, for the love of all that's good and holy, please take this feud out of the classroom. These particular initiatives will cause irreparable damage to the future of our children. Don't let this administration be remembered as the one that sacrificed children's futures to seek revenge on unions.
Ending tenure reduces the candidate pool; merit pay further narrows the curriculum; and closing schools and firing staffs leaves many children in impoverished areas without a choice and devoid of hope.
I'm a business woman, a parent, a non union member who hails from corporate America. My only "skin in the game" is seeing my tax dollars disappear. I don't enjoy seeing my money transferred to private entities who think they can run a school, nor do I relish watching area schools open and close like check-cashing stores. If I want to invest in privatized education, I will. I want my tax dollars to go towards public education as I'm told they do.
My only motivation is to be a voice for all children who cannot be heard. Parents of America's only focus is children. We no longer choose to sit in ringside seats and witness endless bouts. Our children. Our schools. Our voices.
Follow Rita M. Solnet on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ritacolleen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-m-solnet/whos-kidding-who-with-the_b_820509.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=uopx#sb=1169570,b=facebook
by Rita Solnet
I summarized Florida's Education Summit yesterday indicating that the event may have moved us a step forward towards genuine dialogue on education reform. We are certainly better off than if the summit never occurred!
What we haven't looked at -- as a state or nation -- is the big picture on some of these proposed reforms. Let's take a step back and away from the intense debate and ask this question:
Who are these reform initiatives really intended for?
The triumvirate of reforms being aggressively pushed right now are: 1) ending teacher tenure; 2) merit pay based on standardized test scores; and, 3) closing schools/firing staffs.
1) How will ending a teacher's right to due process (consistently mischaracterized as lifetime employment) help to improve the quality of education for children? Short-termers will teach without mentors or seasoned teachers to assist them? Who will you attract to the teaching profession when due process is gone? Corporate America has due process with upper management levels on day one of employment.
2) Merit pay will merely ratchet up the stakes surrounding standardized tests even more. High stakes on tests -- your pay or job riding on one test -- increase the dependency on mind-numbing bubble tests. That doesn't enrich the curriculum. In fact, it narrows it and creates more weeks of test prep, drill and practice.
3) How does closing neighborhood schools help improve the quality of education? Even when the handful of a few good charters acquire rights to open up, many children whose English is a second language or who are dubbed "hard to teach" are left in the dust of the closed school. That's reality versus rhetoric, Real world versus propaganda.
None of the reforms being touted and legislated in some states will truly enhance the quality of education. Isn't that what we set out to accomplish? When, where and why did we take a wrong turn?
Instead, this grand illusion of three reforms impedes improvement to public education. Hidden under the smokescreen of "tough love" reforms, these initiatives are destroying public education in our nation. Celebrities signed on to this front and the media bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Let's call a charade, a charade.
These reforms are specifically intended to acquire power or control over unions. Some may think that's the right fight. Some may think that's the wrong fight. But many will agree it's being played out in the wrong ring -- the classroom. The children of our nation, particularly in impoverished areas, are the ones being sucker punched.
Take your fight outside of the classroom! Settle it across a negotiation table or in a conference room or challenge each other to duels. Take a step back and realize that's what this has been reduced to. Then, for the love of all that's good and holy, please take this feud out of the classroom. These particular initiatives will cause irreparable damage to the future of our children. Don't let this administration be remembered as the one that sacrificed children's futures to seek revenge on unions.
Ending tenure reduces the candidate pool; merit pay further narrows the curriculum; and closing schools and firing staffs leaves many children in impoverished areas without a choice and devoid of hope.
I'm a business woman, a parent, a non union member who hails from corporate America. My only "skin in the game" is seeing my tax dollars disappear. I don't enjoy seeing my money transferred to private entities who think they can run a school, nor do I relish watching area schools open and close like check-cashing stores. If I want to invest in privatized education, I will. I want my tax dollars to go towards public education as I'm told they do.
My only motivation is to be a voice for all children who cannot be heard. Parents of America's only focus is children. We no longer choose to sit in ringside seats and witness endless bouts. Our children. Our schools. Our voices.
Follow Rita M. Solnet on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ritacolleen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-m-solnet/whos-kidding-who-with-the_b_820509.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=uopx#sb=1169570,b=facebook
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Say goodbye to teaching as we know it
From Gainsville.com
by Jackie Alexander
Karen McCann knows her position as leader of the local teachers union is not an enviable one.
The state Legislature is expected to pass policies that would drastically alter how teachers are evaluated and paid. Budget cuts are a matter of when and not if. Other states are busting unions, and education reformers view the union as an affront to their efforts.
Still, McCann says she and her 1,300 union members are doing the right thing.
“When you’re working with teachers and helping teachers, you’re helping kids,” she said. “That’s our focus.”
McCann, 61, took over the Alachua County Educators Association seven months ago after Gunnar Paulson left to run for the School Board. She has worked in county schools for more than 25 years as a counselor.
As the economy worsened and reports surfaced of American students failing to match up to their international counterparts, fingers were pointed at teachers -- and indirectly at the unions that support them.
‘’What has happened, because of the economy, when things get bad, people look for somebody to blame. And right now, the blame is teachers,” she said. “That all of the problems we have in education has become the teacher’s fault and the unions are supporting these teachers who aren’t doing their job.”
ACEA supported the One Mill for Education effort as well as the failed changes to the class-size amendment.
State legislators and President Barack Obama have attacked teacher tenure.
“In South Korea, teachers are known as nation builders,” Obama said in his 2011 State of the Union address. “Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones.”
The truth, McCann said, is that Alachua County has never had “teacher tenure.” Instead, teachers are hired for several years on an annual contract. After the initial phase, teachers can be offered a professional service contract, which still can be yanked at any time.
ACEA created the Alachua County Teachers Assistance Program to help struggling teachers, McCann said. A mentor teacher spends 45 classroom days with the teacher, pointing out strengths and faults.
“There isn’t a teacher I know -- whether they’re in the union or not -- that wants to work with an ineffective teacher,” McCann said.
Gov. Rick Scott’s education team has proposed approving multi-year contracts that don’t exceed three years.
Michelle Rhee of Students First also has publicly attacked teacher tenure as unnecessary, following the same mantra of legislators who favor merit pay.
"Good teachers know they don’t need tenure,” she said. “There is no reason to have it except to protect those that don’t perform as they should.”
In the past, the School Board and the teachers union have worked collaboratively, most recently with McCann accompanying Superintendent Dan Boyd to the “Leading the Way” conference in Hillsborough County.
But the two entities have had run-ins, most recently during the November reorganization meeting when McCann chastised board members for passing over Eileen Roy for chair.
School Board member Carol Oyenarte disagreed with McCann’s mantra that looking out for teachers benefits children.
Through her years of experience, “a teacher was a teacher,” Oyenarte said. “When you’re taking care of children, you’re taking care of teachers.”
Oyenarte also has said in the past that she hopes the union plays fair.
“I’m a team player. I hope the union will be,” she said in a previous interview with The Sun.
Oyenarte declined to be interviewed for this story, saying she did not have time.
School Board chair Barbara Sharpe said she respects the union despite never being part of it.
“We’ve always had a good relationship since I’ve been on the board,” she said. “Our teachers are a very important part of the school system.”
Sharpe said the board hasn’t always been able to give teachers what they wanted, namely raises.
“It’s always been important for me, for us to be able to provide that for them,” she said. “I know what they’re there for, and I know what our limitations are.”
Alachua County teachers haven’t received raises in three years, McCann said.
“You don’t hear teachers crying about extra pay,” she said. “Really they just want respect, respect from the public.”
After 25 years of teaching, a teacher’s annual salary will have increased $17,000, averaging about $700 more each year, McCann said.
“This is not a profession that people go into to get rich,” she said.
Paulson said he’s concerned about Scott’s efforts to kill state pension plans for teachers.
“I don’t know when teachers became the enemy in this country,” he said. “There’s going to be a tipping point where we won’t have the quality of teachers we have now.”
Cutting the pension plan is essentially a 5 percent pay cut for teachers, Paulson said.
“We have a governor that’s going to make teachers pay for the mistakes of others,” he said. “Does that seem right?”
McCann said she doesn’t think legislators realize the havoc they will unleash on the state school system with the changes to public schools anticipated in the upcoming legislative session. Scott has proposed education savings accounts in which parents can use the money that would be spent in a public school to pay for private school tuition.
“They’re creating a situation where children can go to a charter or private school and have inflated grades and make the parents feel good,” she said. “They (private and charter schools) don’t have to come up to the same bar. It’s going to be the exact reverse of what the Legislature says it wants.”
Roy, a longtime union member in addition to being on the School Board, agreed.
“We’re the favorite whipping boy right now,” she said. “Most people are very fond of and trust their child’s school, but then they will jump on the bandwagon to beat up teachers, which includes the very ones their children have prospered under.”
McCann said she worries about the future of all teachers.
“There are going to be changes; I hope that it’s collaborative,” she said. “My fear is really for my profession, for what I love.”
“In South Korea, teachers are known as nation builders,” Obama said in his 2011 State of the Union address. “Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones.”
The truth, McCann said, is that Alachua County has never had “teacher tenure.” Instead, teachers are hired for several years on an annual contract. After the initial phase, teachers can be offered a professional service contract, which still can be yanked at any time.
ACEA created the Alachua County Teachers Assistance Program to help struggling teachers, McCann said. A mentor teacher spends 45 classroom days with the teacher, pointing out strengths and faults.
“There isn’t a teacher I know -- whether they’re in the union or not -- that wants to work with an ineffective teacher,” McCann said.
Gov. Rick Scott’s education team has proposed approving multi-year contracts that don’t exceed three years.
Michelle Rhee of Students First also has publicly attacked teacher tenure as unnecessary, following the same mantra of legislators who favor merit pay.
"Good teachers know they don’t need tenure,” she said. “There is no reason to have it except to protect those that don’t perform as they should.”
In the past, the School Board and the teachers union have worked collaboratively, most recently with McCann accompanying Superintendent Dan Boyd to the “Leading the Way” conference in Hillsborough County.
But the two entities have had run-ins, most recently during the November reorganization meeting when McCann chastised board members for passing over Eileen Roy for chair.
School Board member Carol Oyenarte disagreed with McCann’s mantra that looking out for teachers benefits children.
Through her years of experience, “a teacher was a teacher,” Oyenarte said. “When you’re taking care of children, you’re taking care of teachers.”
Oyenarte also has said in the past that she hopes the union plays fair.
“I’m a team player. I hope the union will be,” she said in a previous interview with The Sun.
Oyenarte declined to be interviewed for this story, saying she did not have time.
School Board chair Barbara Sharpe said she respects the union despite never being part of it.
“We’ve always had a good relationship since I’ve been on the board,” she said. “Our teachers are a very important part of the school system.”
Sharpe said the board hasn’t always been able to give teachers what they wanted, namely raises.
“It’s always been important for me, for us to be able to provide that for them,” she said. “I know what they’re there for, and I know what our limitations are.”
Alachua County teachers haven’t received raises in three years, McCann said.
“You don’t hear teachers crying about extra pay,” she said. “Really they just want respect, respect from the public.”
After 25 years of teaching, a teacher’s annual salary will have increased $17,000, averaging about $700 more each year, McCann said.
“This is not a profession that people go into to get rich,” she said.
Paulson said he’s concerned about Scott’s efforts to kill state pension plans for teachers.
“I don’t know when teachers became the enemy in this country,” he said. “There’s going to be a tipping point where we won’t have the quality of teachers we have now.”
Cutting the pension plan is essentially a 5 percent pay cut for teachers, Paulson said.
“We have a governor that’s going to make teachers pay for the mistakes of others,” he said. “Does that seem right?”
McCann said she doesn’t think legislators realize the havoc they will unleash on the state school system with the changes to public schools anticipated in the upcoming legislative session. Scott has proposed education savings accounts in which parents can use the money that would be spent in a public school to pay for private school tuition.
“They’re creating a situation where children can go to a charter or private school and have inflated grades and make the parents feel good,” she said. “They (private and charter schools) don’t have to come up to the same bar. It’s going to be the exact reverse of what the Legislature says it wants.”
Roy, a longtime union member in addition to being on the School Board, agreed.
“We’re the favorite whipping boy right now,” she said. “Most people are very fond of and trust their child’s school, but then they will jump on the bandwagon to beat up teachers, which includes the very ones their children have prospered under.”
McCann said she worries about the future of all teachers.
“There are going to be changes; I hope that it’s collaborative,” she said. “My fear is really for my profession, for what I love.”
McCann said she doesn’t think legislators realize the havoc they will unleash on the state school system with the changes to public schools anticipated in the upcoming legislative session. Scott has proposed education savings accounts in which parents can use the money that would be spent in a public school to pay for private school tuition.
“They’re creating a situation where children can go to a charter or private school and have inflated grades and make the parents feel good,” she said. “They (private and charter schools) don’t have to come up to the same bar. It’s going to be the exact reverse of what the Legislature says it wants.”
Roy, a longtime union member in addition to being on the School Board, agreed.
“We’re the favorite whipping boy right now,” she said. “Most people are very fond of and trust their child’s school, but then they will jump on the bandwagon to beat up teachers, which includes the very ones their children have prospered under.”
McCann said she worries about the future of all teachers.
“There are going to be changes; I hope that it’s collaborative,” she said. “My fear is really for my profession, for what I love.”
Contact Jackie Alexander at jackie.alexander@gvillesun.com or 338-3166.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110205/ARTICLES/110209649/1169?p=4&tc=pg
by Jackie Alexander
Karen McCann knows her position as leader of the local teachers union is not an enviable one.
The state Legislature is expected to pass policies that would drastically alter how teachers are evaluated and paid. Budget cuts are a matter of when and not if. Other states are busting unions, and education reformers view the union as an affront to their efforts.
Still, McCann says she and her 1,300 union members are doing the right thing.
“When you’re working with teachers and helping teachers, you’re helping kids,” she said. “That’s our focus.”
McCann, 61, took over the Alachua County Educators Association seven months ago after Gunnar Paulson left to run for the School Board. She has worked in county schools for more than 25 years as a counselor.
As the economy worsened and reports surfaced of American students failing to match up to their international counterparts, fingers were pointed at teachers -- and indirectly at the unions that support them.
‘’What has happened, because of the economy, when things get bad, people look for somebody to blame. And right now, the blame is teachers,” she said. “That all of the problems we have in education has become the teacher’s fault and the unions are supporting these teachers who aren’t doing their job.”
ACEA supported the One Mill for Education effort as well as the failed changes to the class-size amendment.
State legislators and President Barack Obama have attacked teacher tenure.
“In South Korea, teachers are known as nation builders,” Obama said in his 2011 State of the Union address. “Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones.”
The truth, McCann said, is that Alachua County has never had “teacher tenure.” Instead, teachers are hired for several years on an annual contract. After the initial phase, teachers can be offered a professional service contract, which still can be yanked at any time.
ACEA created the Alachua County Teachers Assistance Program to help struggling teachers, McCann said. A mentor teacher spends 45 classroom days with the teacher, pointing out strengths and faults.
“There isn’t a teacher I know -- whether they’re in the union or not -- that wants to work with an ineffective teacher,” McCann said.
Gov. Rick Scott’s education team has proposed approving multi-year contracts that don’t exceed three years.
Michelle Rhee of Students First also has publicly attacked teacher tenure as unnecessary, following the same mantra of legislators who favor merit pay.
"Good teachers know they don’t need tenure,” she said. “There is no reason to have it except to protect those that don’t perform as they should.”
In the past, the School Board and the teachers union have worked collaboratively, most recently with McCann accompanying Superintendent Dan Boyd to the “Leading the Way” conference in Hillsborough County.
But the two entities have had run-ins, most recently during the November reorganization meeting when McCann chastised board members for passing over Eileen Roy for chair.
School Board member Carol Oyenarte disagreed with McCann’s mantra that looking out for teachers benefits children.
Through her years of experience, “a teacher was a teacher,” Oyenarte said. “When you’re taking care of children, you’re taking care of teachers.”
Oyenarte also has said in the past that she hopes the union plays fair.
“I’m a team player. I hope the union will be,” she said in a previous interview with The Sun.
Oyenarte declined to be interviewed for this story, saying she did not have time.
School Board chair Barbara Sharpe said she respects the union despite never being part of it.
“We’ve always had a good relationship since I’ve been on the board,” she said. “Our teachers are a very important part of the school system.”
Sharpe said the board hasn’t always been able to give teachers what they wanted, namely raises.
“It’s always been important for me, for us to be able to provide that for them,” she said. “I know what they’re there for, and I know what our limitations are.”
Alachua County teachers haven’t received raises in three years, McCann said.
“You don’t hear teachers crying about extra pay,” she said. “Really they just want respect, respect from the public.”
After 25 years of teaching, a teacher’s annual salary will have increased $17,000, averaging about $700 more each year, McCann said.
“This is not a profession that people go into to get rich,” she said.
Paulson said he’s concerned about Scott’s efforts to kill state pension plans for teachers.
“I don’t know when teachers became the enemy in this country,” he said. “There’s going to be a tipping point where we won’t have the quality of teachers we have now.”
Cutting the pension plan is essentially a 5 percent pay cut for teachers, Paulson said.
“We have a governor that’s going to make teachers pay for the mistakes of others,” he said. “Does that seem right?”
McCann said she doesn’t think legislators realize the havoc they will unleash on the state school system with the changes to public schools anticipated in the upcoming legislative session. Scott has proposed education savings accounts in which parents can use the money that would be spent in a public school to pay for private school tuition.
“They’re creating a situation where children can go to a charter or private school and have inflated grades and make the parents feel good,” she said. “They (private and charter schools) don’t have to come up to the same bar. It’s going to be the exact reverse of what the Legislature says it wants.”
Roy, a longtime union member in addition to being on the School Board, agreed.
“We’re the favorite whipping boy right now,” she said. “Most people are very fond of and trust their child’s school, but then they will jump on the bandwagon to beat up teachers, which includes the very ones their children have prospered under.”
McCann said she worries about the future of all teachers.
“There are going to be changes; I hope that it’s collaborative,” she said. “My fear is really for my profession, for what I love.”
“In South Korea, teachers are known as nation builders,” Obama said in his 2011 State of the Union address. “Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones.”
The truth, McCann said, is that Alachua County has never had “teacher tenure.” Instead, teachers are hired for several years on an annual contract. After the initial phase, teachers can be offered a professional service contract, which still can be yanked at any time.
ACEA created the Alachua County Teachers Assistance Program to help struggling teachers, McCann said. A mentor teacher spends 45 classroom days with the teacher, pointing out strengths and faults.
“There isn’t a teacher I know -- whether they’re in the union or not -- that wants to work with an ineffective teacher,” McCann said.
Gov. Rick Scott’s education team has proposed approving multi-year contracts that don’t exceed three years.
Michelle Rhee of Students First also has publicly attacked teacher tenure as unnecessary, following the same mantra of legislators who favor merit pay.
"Good teachers know they don’t need tenure,” she said. “There is no reason to have it except to protect those that don’t perform as they should.”
In the past, the School Board and the teachers union have worked collaboratively, most recently with McCann accompanying Superintendent Dan Boyd to the “Leading the Way” conference in Hillsborough County.
But the two entities have had run-ins, most recently during the November reorganization meeting when McCann chastised board members for passing over Eileen Roy for chair.
School Board member Carol Oyenarte disagreed with McCann’s mantra that looking out for teachers benefits children.
Through her years of experience, “a teacher was a teacher,” Oyenarte said. “When you’re taking care of children, you’re taking care of teachers.”
Oyenarte also has said in the past that she hopes the union plays fair.
“I’m a team player. I hope the union will be,” she said in a previous interview with The Sun.
Oyenarte declined to be interviewed for this story, saying she did not have time.
School Board chair Barbara Sharpe said she respects the union despite never being part of it.
“We’ve always had a good relationship since I’ve been on the board,” she said. “Our teachers are a very important part of the school system.”
Sharpe said the board hasn’t always been able to give teachers what they wanted, namely raises.
“It’s always been important for me, for us to be able to provide that for them,” she said. “I know what they’re there for, and I know what our limitations are.”
Alachua County teachers haven’t received raises in three years, McCann said.
“You don’t hear teachers crying about extra pay,” she said. “Really they just want respect, respect from the public.”
After 25 years of teaching, a teacher’s annual salary will have increased $17,000, averaging about $700 more each year, McCann said.
“This is not a profession that people go into to get rich,” she said.
Paulson said he’s concerned about Scott’s efforts to kill state pension plans for teachers.
“I don’t know when teachers became the enemy in this country,” he said. “There’s going to be a tipping point where we won’t have the quality of teachers we have now.”
Cutting the pension plan is essentially a 5 percent pay cut for teachers, Paulson said.
“We have a governor that’s going to make teachers pay for the mistakes of others,” he said. “Does that seem right?”
McCann said she doesn’t think legislators realize the havoc they will unleash on the state school system with the changes to public schools anticipated in the upcoming legislative session. Scott has proposed education savings accounts in which parents can use the money that would be spent in a public school to pay for private school tuition.
“They’re creating a situation where children can go to a charter or private school and have inflated grades and make the parents feel good,” she said. “They (private and charter schools) don’t have to come up to the same bar. It’s going to be the exact reverse of what the Legislature says it wants.”
Roy, a longtime union member in addition to being on the School Board, agreed.
“We’re the favorite whipping boy right now,” she said. “Most people are very fond of and trust their child’s school, but then they will jump on the bandwagon to beat up teachers, which includes the very ones their children have prospered under.”
McCann said she worries about the future of all teachers.
“There are going to be changes; I hope that it’s collaborative,” she said. “My fear is really for my profession, for what I love.”
McCann said she doesn’t think legislators realize the havoc they will unleash on the state school system with the changes to public schools anticipated in the upcoming legislative session. Scott has proposed education savings accounts in which parents can use the money that would be spent in a public school to pay for private school tuition.
“They’re creating a situation where children can go to a charter or private school and have inflated grades and make the parents feel good,” she said. “They (private and charter schools) don’t have to come up to the same bar. It’s going to be the exact reverse of what the Legislature says it wants.”
Roy, a longtime union member in addition to being on the School Board, agreed.
“We’re the favorite whipping boy right now,” she said. “Most people are very fond of and trust their child’s school, but then they will jump on the bandwagon to beat up teachers, which includes the very ones their children have prospered under.”
McCann said she worries about the future of all teachers.
“There are going to be changes; I hope that it’s collaborative,” she said. “My fear is really for my profession, for what I love.”
Contact Jackie Alexander at jackie.alexander@gvillesun.com or 338-3166.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110205/ARTICLES/110209649/1169?p=4&tc=pg
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Teachers right to due process under attack
From the New York Times
By TRIP GABRIEL and SAM DILLON
Seizing on a national anxiety over poor student performance, many governors are taking aim at a bedrock tradition of public schools: teacher tenure.
The momentum began over a year ago with President Obama’s call to measure and reward effective teaching, a challenge he repeated in last week’s State of the Union address.
Now several Republican governors have concluded that removing ineffective teachers requires undoing the century-old protections of tenure.
Governors in Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada and New Jersey have called for the elimination or dismantling of tenure. As state legislatures convene this winter, anti-tenure bills are being written in those states and others. Their chances of passing have risen because of crushing state budget deficits that have put teachers’ unions on the defensive.
“It’s practically impossible to remove an underperforming teacher under the system we have now,” said Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, lamenting that his state has the lowest high school graduation rate in the nation.
Eliminating tenure, Mr. Sandoval said, would allow school districts to dismiss teachers based on competence, not seniority, in the event of layoffs.
Politics also play a role.
“These new Republican governors are all trying to outreform one another,” said Michael Petrilli, an education official under President George W. Bush.
In New York City, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has campaigned aggressively for the state to end “last in, first out” protections for teachers. Warning that thousands of young educators face layoffs, Mr. Bloomberg is demanding that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo scrap the seniority law if the budget he will unveil Tuesday includes state cuts to education.
Teachers’ unions have responded to the assault on the status quo by arguing that all the ire directed at bad teachers distorts the issue.
“Why aren’t governors standing up and saying, ‘In our state, we’ll devise a system where nobody will ever get into a classroom who isn’t competent’?” said Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association. “Instead they are saying, ‘Let’s make it easy to fire teachers.’ That’s the wrong goal.”
Tenure laws were originally passed — New Jersey was first in 1909 — to protect teachers from being fired because of race, sex, political views or cronyism.
Public-school teachers typically earn tenure after two or three years on probation. Once they receive it, they have a right to due-process hearings before dismissal, which in many districts makes it expensive and time-consuming to fire teachers considered ineffective. Tenure also brings seniority protections in many districts.
In recent years, research on the importance of teacher quality has sparked a movement to evaluate teachers on how well students are learning — with implications that undermine tenure.
The movement gained momentum with the Obama administration’s Race to the Top grant contest last year. Eleven states enacted laws to link student achievement to teacher evaluations and, in some cases, to pay and job security, according to the American Enterprise Institute.
Now some politicians and policy makers have concluded that if teachers owe their jobs to professional performance, then tenure protections are obsolete.
The former school chancellor of Washington, D.C., Michelle Rhee, who campaigned against tenure as early as 2007, has made abolishing it a cornerstone of a new advocacy group, Students First, which has advised the governors of Florida, Nevada and New Jersey.
All are Republicans, but Ms. Rhee, a Democrat, insisted that the movement was bipartisan.
“There’s a willingness to confront these issues that has never before been in play,” she said, noting that some influential Democratic mayors, including Cory A. Booker in Newark and Antonio R. Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, have also called for making it easier to dismiss ineffective teachers.
In a speech in December, Mr. Villaraigosa — who once worked as a teachers union organizer — said, “Tenure and seniority must be reformed or we will be left with only one option: eliminating it entirely.”
The two national teachers’ unions insist that they, too, favor some degree of reform. The American Federation of Teachers endorsed a sweeping law in Colorado last year that lets administrators remove even tenured teachers who are consistently rated as ineffective.
Many teachers who accept linking job security to their effectiveness still want to require administrators to present any evidence against them in a hearing, which critics of tenure like Ms. Rhee say is unnecessary.
Ada Beth Cutler, dean of the education college at Montclair State University in New Jersey, said, “One of the fears I hear from teachers is that in these tough budget times, what’s going to stop someone from firing someone at the top of the pay scale?”
Mr. Van Roekel of the National Education Association labels tenure laws “fair dismissal laws” that protect from arbitrary firing.
“In all my years in education I don’t remember a time when there was this much concerted effort to eliminate fair dismissal laws,” he said.
In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie, whose combativeness with the teachers’ union has buoyed his national reputation, appears to have a good chance of getting a bill from the Democratic-controlled Legislature that reshapes tenure.
Under a pair of bills moving through the Indiana General Assembly, teachers would have to earn “professional” status based on evaluations tied to student learning, and their collective bargaining would be limited to salary, not seniority rules.
“Most of these reforms would have been dead on arrival” last year, said Tony Bennett, the Indiana superintendent of public instruction.
Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana has said that “teachers should have tenure,” but the bills introduced by his fellow Republicans call for teachers’ traditional protections to be sharply reduced.
It is similar in Florida, where lawmakers plan to reprise an anti-tenure bill from last year that provoked such an outpouring from teachers that the moderate Republican governor, Charlie Crist, vetoed it.
That is unlikely under the new Republican governor, Rick Scott, who told the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce last month: “Good teachers know they don’t need tenure. There is no reason to have it except to protect those that don’t perform as they should.”
And in Idaho, Gov. C. L. Otter, a Republican, presented an education plan last month that said bluntly, “The state will phase out tenure.”
Idaho’s schools superintendent, Tom Luna, argued that the plan would not subject teachers to arbitrary dismissal.
Mr. Van Roekel of the teachers’ union disagreed. Recounting a story that had the burnish of something told many times, he recalled that around 1980, when he was a union leader in Arizona, he had arranged to have a speech pathologist assess a teacher whom a principal was trying to fire because of a speech impediment. The pathologist determined that the teacher had a New York accent.
“She would say ‘ideer,’ instead of ‘idea,’ ” Mr. Van Roekel said. “The principal thought that was a speech impediment. Without a fair dismissal law, that principal could have fired her arbitrarily, without citing any reason.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/01tenure.html?_r=1&hpw
By TRIP GABRIEL and SAM DILLON
Seizing on a national anxiety over poor student performance, many governors are taking aim at a bedrock tradition of public schools: teacher tenure.
The momentum began over a year ago with President Obama’s call to measure and reward effective teaching, a challenge he repeated in last week’s State of the Union address.
Now several Republican governors have concluded that removing ineffective teachers requires undoing the century-old protections of tenure.
Governors in Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada and New Jersey have called for the elimination or dismantling of tenure. As state legislatures convene this winter, anti-tenure bills are being written in those states and others. Their chances of passing have risen because of crushing state budget deficits that have put teachers’ unions on the defensive.
“It’s practically impossible to remove an underperforming teacher under the system we have now,” said Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, lamenting that his state has the lowest high school graduation rate in the nation.
Eliminating tenure, Mr. Sandoval said, would allow school districts to dismiss teachers based on competence, not seniority, in the event of layoffs.
Politics also play a role.
“These new Republican governors are all trying to outreform one another,” said Michael Petrilli, an education official under President George W. Bush.
In New York City, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has campaigned aggressively for the state to end “last in, first out” protections for teachers. Warning that thousands of young educators face layoffs, Mr. Bloomberg is demanding that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo scrap the seniority law if the budget he will unveil Tuesday includes state cuts to education.
Teachers’ unions have responded to the assault on the status quo by arguing that all the ire directed at bad teachers distorts the issue.
“Why aren’t governors standing up and saying, ‘In our state, we’ll devise a system where nobody will ever get into a classroom who isn’t competent’?” said Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association. “Instead they are saying, ‘Let’s make it easy to fire teachers.’ That’s the wrong goal.”
Tenure laws were originally passed — New Jersey was first in 1909 — to protect teachers from being fired because of race, sex, political views or cronyism.
Public-school teachers typically earn tenure after two or three years on probation. Once they receive it, they have a right to due-process hearings before dismissal, which in many districts makes it expensive and time-consuming to fire teachers considered ineffective. Tenure also brings seniority protections in many districts.
In recent years, research on the importance of teacher quality has sparked a movement to evaluate teachers on how well students are learning — with implications that undermine tenure.
The movement gained momentum with the Obama administration’s Race to the Top grant contest last year. Eleven states enacted laws to link student achievement to teacher evaluations and, in some cases, to pay and job security, according to the American Enterprise Institute.
Now some politicians and policy makers have concluded that if teachers owe their jobs to professional performance, then tenure protections are obsolete.
The former school chancellor of Washington, D.C., Michelle Rhee, who campaigned against tenure as early as 2007, has made abolishing it a cornerstone of a new advocacy group, Students First, which has advised the governors of Florida, Nevada and New Jersey.
All are Republicans, but Ms. Rhee, a Democrat, insisted that the movement was bipartisan.
“There’s a willingness to confront these issues that has never before been in play,” she said, noting that some influential Democratic mayors, including Cory A. Booker in Newark and Antonio R. Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, have also called for making it easier to dismiss ineffective teachers.
In a speech in December, Mr. Villaraigosa — who once worked as a teachers union organizer — said, “Tenure and seniority must be reformed or we will be left with only one option: eliminating it entirely.”
The two national teachers’ unions insist that they, too, favor some degree of reform. The American Federation of Teachers endorsed a sweeping law in Colorado last year that lets administrators remove even tenured teachers who are consistently rated as ineffective.
Many teachers who accept linking job security to their effectiveness still want to require administrators to present any evidence against them in a hearing, which critics of tenure like Ms. Rhee say is unnecessary.
Ada Beth Cutler, dean of the education college at Montclair State University in New Jersey, said, “One of the fears I hear from teachers is that in these tough budget times, what’s going to stop someone from firing someone at the top of the pay scale?”
Mr. Van Roekel of the National Education Association labels tenure laws “fair dismissal laws” that protect from arbitrary firing.
“In all my years in education I don’t remember a time when there was this much concerted effort to eliminate fair dismissal laws,” he said.
In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie, whose combativeness with the teachers’ union has buoyed his national reputation, appears to have a good chance of getting a bill from the Democratic-controlled Legislature that reshapes tenure.
Under a pair of bills moving through the Indiana General Assembly, teachers would have to earn “professional” status based on evaluations tied to student learning, and their collective bargaining would be limited to salary, not seniority rules.
“Most of these reforms would have been dead on arrival” last year, said Tony Bennett, the Indiana superintendent of public instruction.
Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana has said that “teachers should have tenure,” but the bills introduced by his fellow Republicans call for teachers’ traditional protections to be sharply reduced.
It is similar in Florida, where lawmakers plan to reprise an anti-tenure bill from last year that provoked such an outpouring from teachers that the moderate Republican governor, Charlie Crist, vetoed it.
That is unlikely under the new Republican governor, Rick Scott, who told the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce last month: “Good teachers know they don’t need tenure. There is no reason to have it except to protect those that don’t perform as they should.”
And in Idaho, Gov. C. L. Otter, a Republican, presented an education plan last month that said bluntly, “The state will phase out tenure.”
Idaho’s schools superintendent, Tom Luna, argued that the plan would not subject teachers to arbitrary dismissal.
Mr. Van Roekel of the teachers’ union disagreed. Recounting a story that had the burnish of something told many times, he recalled that around 1980, when he was a union leader in Arizona, he had arranged to have a speech pathologist assess a teacher whom a principal was trying to fire because of a speech impediment. The pathologist determined that the teacher had a New York accent.
“She would say ‘ideer,’ instead of ‘idea,’ ” Mr. Van Roekel said. “The principal thought that was a speech impediment. Without a fair dismissal law, that principal could have fired her arbitrarily, without citing any reason.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/01tenure.html?_r=1&hpw
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Scott and the state legislatures ideas don't add up
From Practical State.com
Posted by Umpire
With state legislators already drafting legislation that will impact public schools, the time to discuss education reform is now, not the legislative session’s first day. For those who follow trends in education reform, much of the debate centers on increasing performance pay and ending tenure for teachers. Sadly, few people want to discuss equally important issues such as school funding and student poverty. Florida’s education reformers must be willing to discuss all of the issues affecting our schools and not just politically trendy topics that research demonstrates will do little to improve student achievement. The reality is no quick fix exists for public schools. The only way sustainable reform can take place is if all stakeholders including educators, parents, elected officials and community members take action.
Gov. Rick Scott recently named Michelle Rhee, who resigned as superintendent of the District of Columbia’s public schools before she could be fired, as his education-reform advisor. Floridians should know that Rhee publicly admitted to taping her students’ mouths shut, causing them to bleed, when she was a teacher. This alone would have caused Florida teachers to be suspended or fired. Rhee also described swallowing a bee in front of her students.
During the coming months, Floridians will hear from Scott and Rhee about merit pay. Elected politicians who maintain veto-proof control of the Legislature also want to tie teacher salaries to student learning. Teachers are more than willing to discuss raising their salaries, which remain 28th in the nation, including performance pay.
Even so, when it comes to tying teacher salaries to test scores, research has shown that teachers do not control about 60 percent of the factors that influence student learning. Achievement is impacted significantly by what occurs in the students’ lives outside of the classroom. Vanderbilt University studied 300 teachers who received an additional $15,000 in salary if they raised student test scores. After three years, the students’ test scores of teachers receiving merit pay was no different than the students of teachers who did not receive more pay.
Successful merit pay requires student performance assessments to consider a variety of measures including attendance, ongoing classroom assessments, traditional letter grades, academic portfolios, and yes, even test scores. Reformers must recognize that teachers are already doing everything they can despite severe budget cuts to increase student achievement without performance pay. Florida schools are not filled with bad teachers.
Reformers such as Rhee also talk about ending teacher tenure as a solution to public schools’ problems. Tenure provides teachers with the right to due process so they cannot be fired arbitrarily. It does not mean they have a job for life.
Teachers do not give themselves tenure. After a teacher has worked successfully for several years, administrators decide which teachers deserve this protection.
Rather than ending tenure, reform should study improving teacher evaluations. Currently, most administrators conduct quick drive-by evaluations that provide teachers with little feedback that they can use to improve. By making evaluations more transparent and objective, teachers will have the opportunity to learn better ways to increase student achievement.
If Scott, Rhee and elected officials want Florida’s schools to rise to the very top in the nation, then they cannot continue to provide funding at the very bottom of all states. Good schools cost money.
Reducing child poverty also must be a priority as research shows students who live in low socio-economic conditions suffer academically. Nearly 66 percent of Broward County’s 281 schools are considered Title I, which means a majority of the students come from low income families. Miami-Dade County has 328 Title I schools.
Education reform cannot be dictated from Tallahassee. Increasing student achievement must be based on research and best practices that have been proven to work rather than political rhetoric. If we hope to achieve long-term school improvement than teachers, parents, elected leaders and community stakeholders must be involved in the process
With respect to Rhee, Santeramo’s piece is hard-hitting. It should be. These are the facts that far too many people dismiss about someone who is turning out to be the face of reform efforts all over the county. Floridians do not realize that education policy is being driven by the most radical of reformists in Rhee, Jeb Bush and Patricia Levesque.
Little evidence of Rhee’s Baltomore teaching tenure exists aside from what she tell us. It was only three years after a short training period with Teach for America. She touts a success level of her student’s test scores that not only is unverifiable, but is too high to believe. Santeremo is also correct in pointing out that the story Rhee herself circulates about taping a child’s mouth shut would result in a firing of a Florida teacher. And yes, even one who was a union member.
Scott’s teacher assessment proposal includes a 50 percent reliance on test scores. This is right out of Rhee’s controversial IMPACT system. This system is the reason why both Rhee and her boss the mayor both lost their jobs. Rhee is disingenuous when she blames the teacher’s union for her defeat, and IMPACT is now in danger of being scrapped by the new DC mayor.
If only teacher unions were as powerful as Rhee asserts and Republicans assume. Such influence would have long ago halted the juggernaut of high stakes testing like FCAT. Politicians like Scott and Bush along with policy makers like Rhee and Levesque are ignoring the voices of parents who realize the monster that high stakes testing became. In what was intended to be a means with which to monitor student achievement became an ends of final judgements on students, teachers, administrators and schools.
They dismiss mountains of evidence and refuse to take into account the role poverty has in a child’s learning. To do so would render null and void their teacher assessment scheme.
Levesque, who has no experience in education, is portraying the Scott plan as one which provides “choice” for parents. What if parents chose not to want their children and their children’s teachers and schools judged by high stakes testing?
You can find the piece by Pat Santeramo at: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/28/2038563_public-should-engage-now.html#storylink=addthis
http://www.practicalstate.com/2011/01/29/florida-must-begin-having-the-conversation-now-on-rick-scott-and-michelle-rhees-education-reform-efforts/
Posted by Umpire
With state legislators already drafting legislation that will impact public schools, the time to discuss education reform is now, not the legislative session’s first day. For those who follow trends in education reform, much of the debate centers on increasing performance pay and ending tenure for teachers. Sadly, few people want to discuss equally important issues such as school funding and student poverty. Florida’s education reformers must be willing to discuss all of the issues affecting our schools and not just politically trendy topics that research demonstrates will do little to improve student achievement. The reality is no quick fix exists for public schools. The only way sustainable reform can take place is if all stakeholders including educators, parents, elected officials and community members take action.
Gov. Rick Scott recently named Michelle Rhee, who resigned as superintendent of the District of Columbia’s public schools before she could be fired, as his education-reform advisor. Floridians should know that Rhee publicly admitted to taping her students’ mouths shut, causing them to bleed, when she was a teacher. This alone would have caused Florida teachers to be suspended or fired. Rhee also described swallowing a bee in front of her students.
During the coming months, Floridians will hear from Scott and Rhee about merit pay. Elected politicians who maintain veto-proof control of the Legislature also want to tie teacher salaries to student learning. Teachers are more than willing to discuss raising their salaries, which remain 28th in the nation, including performance pay.
Even so, when it comes to tying teacher salaries to test scores, research has shown that teachers do not control about 60 percent of the factors that influence student learning. Achievement is impacted significantly by what occurs in the students’ lives outside of the classroom. Vanderbilt University studied 300 teachers who received an additional $15,000 in salary if they raised student test scores. After three years, the students’ test scores of teachers receiving merit pay was no different than the students of teachers who did not receive more pay.
Successful merit pay requires student performance assessments to consider a variety of measures including attendance, ongoing classroom assessments, traditional letter grades, academic portfolios, and yes, even test scores. Reformers must recognize that teachers are already doing everything they can despite severe budget cuts to increase student achievement without performance pay. Florida schools are not filled with bad teachers.
Reformers such as Rhee also talk about ending teacher tenure as a solution to public schools’ problems. Tenure provides teachers with the right to due process so they cannot be fired arbitrarily. It does not mean they have a job for life.
Teachers do not give themselves tenure. After a teacher has worked successfully for several years, administrators decide which teachers deserve this protection.
Rather than ending tenure, reform should study improving teacher evaluations. Currently, most administrators conduct quick drive-by evaluations that provide teachers with little feedback that they can use to improve. By making evaluations more transparent and objective, teachers will have the opportunity to learn better ways to increase student achievement.
If Scott, Rhee and elected officials want Florida’s schools to rise to the very top in the nation, then they cannot continue to provide funding at the very bottom of all states. Good schools cost money.
Reducing child poverty also must be a priority as research shows students who live in low socio-economic conditions suffer academically. Nearly 66 percent of Broward County’s 281 schools are considered Title I, which means a majority of the students come from low income families. Miami-Dade County has 328 Title I schools.
Education reform cannot be dictated from Tallahassee. Increasing student achievement must be based on research and best practices that have been proven to work rather than political rhetoric. If we hope to achieve long-term school improvement than teachers, parents, elected leaders and community stakeholders must be involved in the process
With respect to Rhee, Santeramo’s piece is hard-hitting. It should be. These are the facts that far too many people dismiss about someone who is turning out to be the face of reform efforts all over the county. Floridians do not realize that education policy is being driven by the most radical of reformists in Rhee, Jeb Bush and Patricia Levesque.
Little evidence of Rhee’s Baltomore teaching tenure exists aside from what she tell us. It was only three years after a short training period with Teach for America. She touts a success level of her student’s test scores that not only is unverifiable, but is too high to believe. Santeremo is also correct in pointing out that the story Rhee herself circulates about taping a child’s mouth shut would result in a firing of a Florida teacher. And yes, even one who was a union member.
Scott’s teacher assessment proposal includes a 50 percent reliance on test scores. This is right out of Rhee’s controversial IMPACT system. This system is the reason why both Rhee and her boss the mayor both lost their jobs. Rhee is disingenuous when she blames the teacher’s union for her defeat, and IMPACT is now in danger of being scrapped by the new DC mayor.
If only teacher unions were as powerful as Rhee asserts and Republicans assume. Such influence would have long ago halted the juggernaut of high stakes testing like FCAT. Politicians like Scott and Bush along with policy makers like Rhee and Levesque are ignoring the voices of parents who realize the monster that high stakes testing became. In what was intended to be a means with which to monitor student achievement became an ends of final judgements on students, teachers, administrators and schools.
They dismiss mountains of evidence and refuse to take into account the role poverty has in a child’s learning. To do so would render null and void their teacher assessment scheme.
Levesque, who has no experience in education, is portraying the Scott plan as one which provides “choice” for parents. What if parents chose not to want their children and their children’s teachers and schools judged by high stakes testing?
You can find the piece by Pat Santeramo at: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/28/2038563_public-should-engage-now.html#storylink=addthis
http://www.practicalstate.com/2011/01/29/florida-must-begin-having-the-conversation-now-on-rick-scott-and-michelle-rhees-education-reform-efforts/
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
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
How do YOU feel about teachers
From the Shanker Blog
I was very interested to see, in a post by my colleague last month, that elementary school teachers were again voted among the top five most “honest and ethical” occupations in America, by respondents to a November 2010 Gallup Poll.
According to Gallup, 67 percent of respondents rated the honesty/ethics of teachers as “high/very high,” 24 percent rated it “average,” and 6 percent rated it as “low/very low” (the error margin is +/- 4 percentage points). Only nurses, military officers, and pharmacists ranked higher (with doctors, who ranked 5th, in a statistical tie with teachers).
I found this interesting because it contradicts a key underlying feature of much of our public education debate. I’ve heard many thousands of teachers speaking out against the market-based reforms that are currently in vogue among opinion leaders, and seen them effectively ignored. I’ve heard everyone from Oprah to big-city superintendents to major television networks tout “Waiting for Superman” — a movie that supposedly focuses on teacher quality as the key to improving education, yet fails to interview even a single teacher. I’ve read hundreds of articles and posts that imply (and sometimes state directly) that teachers who oppose a favored policy do so because they “fear accountability,” or that they are more interested in their compensation and job security than in the children they teach.
Many teachers call this type of behavior “teacher hating” or a “war on teachers.” In my view, however, the fundamental issue here is trust. And the public’s continued faith in teachers does not seem to be shared by many of today’s pundits and policymakers. These same people say frequently that they want to “treat teachers like professionals,” but there’s a lot more to that than personnel policies.
To be sure, the opinions of individual teachers towards education policy vary a great deal, as do those among incumbents of any occupation. Nevertheless, teachers generally hold more negative views toward policies such as merit pay and granting tenure based on students’ test scores, compared with the general public. For instance, a 2009 survey of education attitudes, which oversampled teachers, found that 75 percent of teachers “opposed” or “strongly opposed” basing teacher pay on student test scores, compared with about 27 percent of non-teacher respondents. 59 percent of teachers opposed making teachers demonstrate their students’ progress on test score in order to get tenure, while only 20 percent of all respondents voiced opposition (note, however, that these responses might have been different had the questions specified some kind of specific policy configuration – e.g., basing tenure/pay partially on scores, along with other performance measures).
Almost reflexively, many commentators seem to chalk up this opposition to self-interest (usually implicitly). It’s assumed that teachers oppose these policies because they are protecting their pay or benefits or job security. For some teachers, this is no doubt true. But has it ever occurred to people, even for a minute, that teachers might oppose these ideas simply because they think that they’re bad?
One has to wonder why so many smart, generally open-minded people, when they hear that teachers are skeptical about an education policy, seem to default immediately to an explanation of economic self-interest. In other words, teachers are in it for the money. Really? Frankly, anyone who chooses a teaching career for the money would appear to have absolutely no sense of economic self-interest whatsoever.
This tendency to ascribe economic motives to teachers when evaluating their policy opinions is an unfortunate one, because most people would still acknowledge (I hope) that teachers are likely the foremost experts in the nation when it comes to judging what will and will not improve student performance and the quality of instruction. It also overlooks the fact that teachers’ self-interest is inextricably tied to the well-being of their students, the quality of their chosen profession, and the performance of the schools in which they work. This is, for example, evident in their mobility decisions, which are influenced more by working conditions than by monetary considerations.
Sure, teachers care about their salary and benefits, as we all do. But treating teachers, even by implication, as if they care more about compensation or job security than about their students and schools is wrong, and it is certainly not treating them like professionals. The Gallup Poll suggests that the general public understands this. And, in fairness, I think that most political and media figures realize that teachers have much to contribute to policy debates. It is therefore perplexing that their actions and words so often suggest the opposite sentiment.
Whatever the reason, the result is that we may be squandering one of the most precious resources we have when it comes to school reform — the informed opinion of our teachers.
http://shankerblog.org/?p=1469
I was very interested to see, in a post by my colleague last month, that elementary school teachers were again voted among the top five most “honest and ethical” occupations in America, by respondents to a November 2010 Gallup Poll.
According to Gallup, 67 percent of respondents rated the honesty/ethics of teachers as “high/very high,” 24 percent rated it “average,” and 6 percent rated it as “low/very low” (the error margin is +/- 4 percentage points). Only nurses, military officers, and pharmacists ranked higher (with doctors, who ranked 5th, in a statistical tie with teachers).
I found this interesting because it contradicts a key underlying feature of much of our public education debate. I’ve heard many thousands of teachers speaking out against the market-based reforms that are currently in vogue among opinion leaders, and seen them effectively ignored. I’ve heard everyone from Oprah to big-city superintendents to major television networks tout “Waiting for Superman” — a movie that supposedly focuses on teacher quality as the key to improving education, yet fails to interview even a single teacher. I’ve read hundreds of articles and posts that imply (and sometimes state directly) that teachers who oppose a favored policy do so because they “fear accountability,” or that they are more interested in their compensation and job security than in the children they teach.
Many teachers call this type of behavior “teacher hating” or a “war on teachers.” In my view, however, the fundamental issue here is trust. And the public’s continued faith in teachers does not seem to be shared by many of today’s pundits and policymakers. These same people say frequently that they want to “treat teachers like professionals,” but there’s a lot more to that than personnel policies.
To be sure, the opinions of individual teachers towards education policy vary a great deal, as do those among incumbents of any occupation. Nevertheless, teachers generally hold more negative views toward policies such as merit pay and granting tenure based on students’ test scores, compared with the general public. For instance, a 2009 survey of education attitudes, which oversampled teachers, found that 75 percent of teachers “opposed” or “strongly opposed” basing teacher pay on student test scores, compared with about 27 percent of non-teacher respondents. 59 percent of teachers opposed making teachers demonstrate their students’ progress on test score in order to get tenure, while only 20 percent of all respondents voiced opposition (note, however, that these responses might have been different had the questions specified some kind of specific policy configuration – e.g., basing tenure/pay partially on scores, along with other performance measures).
Almost reflexively, many commentators seem to chalk up this opposition to self-interest (usually implicitly). It’s assumed that teachers oppose these policies because they are protecting their pay or benefits or job security. For some teachers, this is no doubt true. But has it ever occurred to people, even for a minute, that teachers might oppose these ideas simply because they think that they’re bad?
One has to wonder why so many smart, generally open-minded people, when they hear that teachers are skeptical about an education policy, seem to default immediately to an explanation of economic self-interest. In other words, teachers are in it for the money. Really? Frankly, anyone who chooses a teaching career for the money would appear to have absolutely no sense of economic self-interest whatsoever.
This tendency to ascribe economic motives to teachers when evaluating their policy opinions is an unfortunate one, because most people would still acknowledge (I hope) that teachers are likely the foremost experts in the nation when it comes to judging what will and will not improve student performance and the quality of instruction. It also overlooks the fact that teachers’ self-interest is inextricably tied to the well-being of their students, the quality of their chosen profession, and the performance of the schools in which they work. This is, for example, evident in their mobility decisions, which are influenced more by working conditions than by monetary considerations.
Sure, teachers care about their salary and benefits, as we all do. But treating teachers, even by implication, as if they care more about compensation or job security than about their students and schools is wrong, and it is certainly not treating them like professionals. The Gallup Poll suggests that the general public understands this. And, in fairness, I think that most political and media figures realize that teachers have much to contribute to policy debates. It is therefore perplexing that their actions and words so often suggest the opposite sentiment.
Whatever the reason, the result is that we may be squandering one of the most precious resources we have when it comes to school reform — the informed opinion of our teachers.
http://shankerblog.org/?p=1469
Monday, January 17, 2011
Michelle Rhee's plan dissected
From Education Week
by Anthony Cody
Michelle Rhee has been everywhere that education is discussed for the past few months. Oprah declared her a "warrior woman." She appeared on the cover of Newsweek magazine, holding a broom, presumably to sweep the trash out of our classrooms. Her trajectory faltered a bit when the mayor who appointed her chancellor of schools in Washington, DC, was defeated -- and many voters cited Rhee as one of their reasons for their choice. But two weeks ago she launched her latest venture, a website that aims to build a movement to support her vision of change, Students First. She proclaimed the intent of raising a billion dollars and recruiting a million members. On January 10, she offered her detailed plan to "fix America's broken education system." This plan is positively Orwellian in the way in which it turns things into their opposites.
Let's take a look at the elements of this plan and their likely outcomes.
Priority One: Elevate the Teaching Profession by Valuing Teachers' Impact on Students.
Under this plan, the way to "treat teachers like professionals" is to
Base the following things on test scores (euphemistically described as "student results.")
•Evaluations of teachers
•Evaluations of principals
•Evaluations of teacher preparation programs
•Teacher pay
•Hiring, transfer and layoffs of teachers
Furthermore, we should eliminate due process (referred to as tenure.)
It is bizarre to portray this as a way of elevating the teaching profession. Under the system Rhee describes, teachers will be subject to annual reviews based on their test scores, and if these scores are unsatisfactory, teachers can be dismissed. In the absence of due process protections, an administrator can use test data to "prove" that one is "ineffective" and that is the end of your career. As has been recently shown, the "value added" methods used for these purposes are highly unreliable, and are likely to result in many good teachers being mislabeled as ineffective.
There is so much wrong with this, it is hard to know where to begin. As has been shown time and again, teachers are not the primary reason for the disparity in achievement between students in wealthy versus poor schools. Poverty itself is the culprit, and it will do no good to "hold teachers accountable" for things beyond their control. What it will do is intensify the process underway as a result of No Child Left Behind, where classrooms in impoverished communities are turned into places where teachers use every available minute to teach students the material that will be on the test. And if we evaluate teacher preparation programs in this fashion, it will ensure that this narrow mindset is part of every incoming teacher's induction to the profession.
Priority Two: Empower parents with real choices and real information.
This section advocates making public the test scores of schools and individual teachers, and calls for giving parents the right to choose the teacher and school for their children based on these scores. I asked parent activist Leonie Haimson, one of the founders of Parents Across America - and the Executive Director of Class Size Matters, for her thoughts in response to this. She replied,
Parents want the most basic choice of all: a good public school that their child has the right to attend. All children need the guarantee of a quality education, not just for a select few. That means improving all of our schools by providing them with sufficient and equitable funding, small classes, experienced teachers and a well-rounded curriculum.
Michelle Rhee's organization is not supporting any of these important goals, but is undermining them by offering the promise of false "choices" through the further expansion of charter schools and vouchers, that starve our public schools of resources by taking taxpayer money to fund schools run by private organizations that are not accountable to the public. Charter schools do not take their fair share of the neediest students, suffer from extremely high student and teacher attrition rates, and in national studies, have no better results.
A strong public education system is essential to our democracy. The proliferation of charters and private schools will undermine the health of the public schools as a whole.
Priority Three: Spend Taxpayer Resources Wisely to Get Better Results for Students.
This is where things get really nasty. We are told,
Over the past 40 years, per-pupil funding has more than doubled, but students have little to show for it. Student achievement has remained flat. This funding/achievement disconnect exists because in many cases states have spent money on some "feel good" things that have not been proven to increase student achievement, such as smaller classes or raising salaries based on advanced degrees instead of effectiveness.
According to Rhee's plan, "...funding decisions must be made through the prism of student learning and family empowerment rather than adult political and parochial interests." The plan says, "All spending should tie to student achievement and the structures in place should be directly accountable for the results."
Once again, as if it were not obvious, the "prism of student learning" and "student achievement" actually mean "based on test scores."
Some of the strongest education research available supports small class sizes as being crucial for meeting the needs of all students. Private schools attended by the wealthy have, on average, class sizes roughly half those of public schools.
Teachers currently receive higher levels of pay for gaining more education themselves. When teachers collaborate with their districts, they can find interesting ways to improve compensation systems, to align them better with meaningful growth - as was done in Minneapolis. However, systems that base teacher pay on test scores have NOT been shown to work -- even for that narrow purpose.
Lastly, Rhee suggests: "Ensure that the government exercises discipline in pension and benefit programs. "
In today's fiscal climate we know what that means. Rhee's idea of elevating the teaching profession is to make every single facet of our working lives entirely dependent on test scores. Teacher's retirement funds are rather difficult to justify in this regard. Many of us have chosen to work in a relatively poorly paid profession for deferred compensation in the form of our retirement. Never mind that, it doesn't help the test scores, so forget about it.
Who will choose to work in America's neediest schools under this regime? Rhee herself is an alumni of Teach For America, but this organization only provides a few thousand teachers to our schools every year - and we need millions. Furthermore, we need people to choose teaching as a career, not a two or three year-long temporary gig before going on to Med school. I have worked as a mentor for many Teach For America interns, and they are just getting on their feet in their second year. By their third year, those who stick around are becoming very good teachers. By their fourth year, however, 75% of them are gone, at least in Oakland. This is no way to "elevate a profession." Many baby boomers will be retiring soon. Who will take our places? If teacher pay and evaluations rest entirely on test scores, the corruption of our school system will be complete. Perhaps we teachers and parents need a grassroots movementof our own.
by Anthony Cody
Michelle Rhee has been everywhere that education is discussed for the past few months. Oprah declared her a "warrior woman." She appeared on the cover of Newsweek magazine, holding a broom, presumably to sweep the trash out of our classrooms. Her trajectory faltered a bit when the mayor who appointed her chancellor of schools in Washington, DC, was defeated -- and many voters cited Rhee as one of their reasons for their choice. But two weeks ago she launched her latest venture, a website that aims to build a movement to support her vision of change, Students First. She proclaimed the intent of raising a billion dollars and recruiting a million members. On January 10, she offered her detailed plan to "fix America's broken education system." This plan is positively Orwellian in the way in which it turns things into their opposites.
Let's take a look at the elements of this plan and their likely outcomes.
Priority One: Elevate the Teaching Profession by Valuing Teachers' Impact on Students.
Under this plan, the way to "treat teachers like professionals" is to
Base the following things on test scores (euphemistically described as "student results.")
•Evaluations of teachers
•Evaluations of principals
•Evaluations of teacher preparation programs
•Teacher pay
•Hiring, transfer and layoffs of teachers
Furthermore, we should eliminate due process (referred to as tenure.)
It is bizarre to portray this as a way of elevating the teaching profession. Under the system Rhee describes, teachers will be subject to annual reviews based on their test scores, and if these scores are unsatisfactory, teachers can be dismissed. In the absence of due process protections, an administrator can use test data to "prove" that one is "ineffective" and that is the end of your career. As has been recently shown, the "value added" methods used for these purposes are highly unreliable, and are likely to result in many good teachers being mislabeled as ineffective.
There is so much wrong with this, it is hard to know where to begin. As has been shown time and again, teachers are not the primary reason for the disparity in achievement between students in wealthy versus poor schools. Poverty itself is the culprit, and it will do no good to "hold teachers accountable" for things beyond their control. What it will do is intensify the process underway as a result of No Child Left Behind, where classrooms in impoverished communities are turned into places where teachers use every available minute to teach students the material that will be on the test. And if we evaluate teacher preparation programs in this fashion, it will ensure that this narrow mindset is part of every incoming teacher's induction to the profession.
Priority Two: Empower parents with real choices and real information.
This section advocates making public the test scores of schools and individual teachers, and calls for giving parents the right to choose the teacher and school for their children based on these scores. I asked parent activist Leonie Haimson, one of the founders of Parents Across America - and the Executive Director of Class Size Matters, for her thoughts in response to this. She replied,
Parents want the most basic choice of all: a good public school that their child has the right to attend. All children need the guarantee of a quality education, not just for a select few. That means improving all of our schools by providing them with sufficient and equitable funding, small classes, experienced teachers and a well-rounded curriculum.
Michelle Rhee's organization is not supporting any of these important goals, but is undermining them by offering the promise of false "choices" through the further expansion of charter schools and vouchers, that starve our public schools of resources by taking taxpayer money to fund schools run by private organizations that are not accountable to the public. Charter schools do not take their fair share of the neediest students, suffer from extremely high student and teacher attrition rates, and in national studies, have no better results.
A strong public education system is essential to our democracy. The proliferation of charters and private schools will undermine the health of the public schools as a whole.
Priority Three: Spend Taxpayer Resources Wisely to Get Better Results for Students.
This is where things get really nasty. We are told,
Over the past 40 years, per-pupil funding has more than doubled, but students have little to show for it. Student achievement has remained flat. This funding/achievement disconnect exists because in many cases states have spent money on some "feel good" things that have not been proven to increase student achievement, such as smaller classes or raising salaries based on advanced degrees instead of effectiveness.
According to Rhee's plan, "...funding decisions must be made through the prism of student learning and family empowerment rather than adult political and parochial interests." The plan says, "All spending should tie to student achievement and the structures in place should be directly accountable for the results."
Once again, as if it were not obvious, the "prism of student learning" and "student achievement" actually mean "based on test scores."
Some of the strongest education research available supports small class sizes as being crucial for meeting the needs of all students. Private schools attended by the wealthy have, on average, class sizes roughly half those of public schools.
Teachers currently receive higher levels of pay for gaining more education themselves. When teachers collaborate with their districts, they can find interesting ways to improve compensation systems, to align them better with meaningful growth - as was done in Minneapolis. However, systems that base teacher pay on test scores have NOT been shown to work -- even for that narrow purpose.
Lastly, Rhee suggests: "Ensure that the government exercises discipline in pension and benefit programs. "
In today's fiscal climate we know what that means. Rhee's idea of elevating the teaching profession is to make every single facet of our working lives entirely dependent on test scores. Teacher's retirement funds are rather difficult to justify in this regard. Many of us have chosen to work in a relatively poorly paid profession for deferred compensation in the form of our retirement. Never mind that, it doesn't help the test scores, so forget about it.
Who will choose to work in America's neediest schools under this regime? Rhee herself is an alumni of Teach For America, but this organization only provides a few thousand teachers to our schools every year - and we need millions. Furthermore, we need people to choose teaching as a career, not a two or three year-long temporary gig before going on to Med school. I have worked as a mentor for many Teach For America interns, and they are just getting on their feet in their second year. By their third year, those who stick around are becoming very good teachers. By their fourth year, however, 75% of them are gone, at least in Oakland. This is no way to "elevate a profession." Many baby boomers will be retiring soon. Who will take our places? If teacher pay and evaluations rest entirely on test scores, the corruption of our school system will be complete. Perhaps we teachers and parents need a grassroots movementof our own.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
What teacher Tenure is and what it isn't
From NEA today
By Kevin Hart
A recent Time magazine poll asked members of the public how they felt about teacher tenure. And, in the course of a 26-word question, Time managed to perpetuate three myths that educators say are contributing to the public’s misunderstanding over what tenure is — and what it’s not.
Specifically, Time asked, “Do you support or oppose tenure for teachers, the practice of guaranteeing teachers lifetime job security after they have worked for a certain amount of time?”
Educators say the September 20 issue of Time magazine perpetuated myths about tenure and other education issues.
The problem is, tenure does not guarantee teachers a job, does not offer any lifetime employment security, and, regardless of the implication of Time’s question, does not just happen after a “certain amount of time.”
Educators participating in a recent discussion on NEA Today’s Facebook page said that these three tenure myths are prevalent among the media and the general public, and are distractions in the debate on how to improve America’s public schools.
The notion that tenure is a guaranteed job for life must have come as a shock for Lancaster, Calif., teacher Carolyn Heia Brown, who said that she received tenure and was laid off in the same month.
If you thought tenured teachers couldn’t lose their jobs, you’re not alone — it’s a common misunderstanding, but that doesn’t make it accurate. Tenure does not guarantee teachers a job, but instead mandates that due process be followed before tenured teachers are dismissed.
The reason is simple enough, said Alabama educator Shannon Keith Ginn, who calls tenure a “measure of protection against personal vendettas and personality conflicts.”
After all, qualified, effective educators who are benefiting students and raising student achievement should not be removed from the classroom because of political disagreements with an administrator — or because the sibling of a local, influential figure wants a job.
And teachers who receive tenure often endure a marathon process before it is granted. At most jobs outside the field of education, a newly hired employee may be considered probationary for six months, or even a year.
When teachers are hired, it is common for them to serve as untenured, probationary employees for three or four years. At this point they can be — and often are — dismissed for any reason whatsoever. That time period also gives school administrators an extended opportunity to evaluate a teacher before determining whether or not the school district, at its discretion, should grant the teacher tenure.
“When explaining tenure, I first make sure to emphasize that tenure is earned, not just handed out to every teacher who walks through the door,” said Illinois teacher Chris Janotta. “Where I work, for instance, a teacher becomes tenured after four probationary years. I explain that the administration has the power to let a teacher go for any reason during these four years. Period.”
Much of the public debate over tenure has focused on whether it is possible to fire tenured teachers who are no longer making the grade. The fact is, contracts between unions and school districts in no way forbid the firing of tenured teachers.
Janotta said he has personally seen two tenured teachers with 20 years of experience let go because of performance issues.
“Did proper steps need to be taken before these teachers were terminated? Of course,” he said. “Were these steps so overwhelming that administration decided it wasn’t worth proceeding with them? Obviously not, or those teachers would still have their jobs.”
Tenure is about due process — not about guaranteeing jobs for life. And it’s not about protecting “bad” teachers — it’s about protecting good teachers.
The typical tenure agreement lays out steps and documentation necessary for dismissing a tenured teacher. Many private corporations also have termination processes and documentation requirements that managers must follow before firing an employee.
Determining which teachers are making the grade depends on a thorough and rigorous evaluation process, and many teachers complain that the evaluation systems at their schools are not functioning. Teachers say they are not evaluated enough, the criteria are murky, and sometimes they receive conflicting evaluations from different administrators.
So why is there so much attention being paid to issues like tenure? Meg Gruber, a teacher from Virginia, believes the issue is largely being driven and pitched to the media by anti-union individuals and organizations. Kelle Stewart, an elementary school teacher from Tennessee, said the heavy focus on tenure keeps the education debate from focusing on real issues that significantly affect public schools.
“Tenure is a red herring that really has nothing at all to do with the problems our schools are facing,“ she
http://neatoday.org/2010/09/17/what-tenure-is-and-what-it’s-not/
By Kevin Hart
A recent Time magazine poll asked members of the public how they felt about teacher tenure. And, in the course of a 26-word question, Time managed to perpetuate three myths that educators say are contributing to the public’s misunderstanding over what tenure is — and what it’s not.
Specifically, Time asked, “Do you support or oppose tenure for teachers, the practice of guaranteeing teachers lifetime job security after they have worked for a certain amount of time?”
Educators say the September 20 issue of Time magazine perpetuated myths about tenure and other education issues.
The problem is, tenure does not guarantee teachers a job, does not offer any lifetime employment security, and, regardless of the implication of Time’s question, does not just happen after a “certain amount of time.”
Educators participating in a recent discussion on NEA Today’s Facebook page said that these three tenure myths are prevalent among the media and the general public, and are distractions in the debate on how to improve America’s public schools.
The notion that tenure is a guaranteed job for life must have come as a shock for Lancaster, Calif., teacher Carolyn Heia Brown, who said that she received tenure and was laid off in the same month.
If you thought tenured teachers couldn’t lose their jobs, you’re not alone — it’s a common misunderstanding, but that doesn’t make it accurate. Tenure does not guarantee teachers a job, but instead mandates that due process be followed before tenured teachers are dismissed.
The reason is simple enough, said Alabama educator Shannon Keith Ginn, who calls tenure a “measure of protection against personal vendettas and personality conflicts.”
After all, qualified, effective educators who are benefiting students and raising student achievement should not be removed from the classroom because of political disagreements with an administrator — or because the sibling of a local, influential figure wants a job.
And teachers who receive tenure often endure a marathon process before it is granted. At most jobs outside the field of education, a newly hired employee may be considered probationary for six months, or even a year.
When teachers are hired, it is common for them to serve as untenured, probationary employees for three or four years. At this point they can be — and often are — dismissed for any reason whatsoever. That time period also gives school administrators an extended opportunity to evaluate a teacher before determining whether or not the school district, at its discretion, should grant the teacher tenure.
“When explaining tenure, I first make sure to emphasize that tenure is earned, not just handed out to every teacher who walks through the door,” said Illinois teacher Chris Janotta. “Where I work, for instance, a teacher becomes tenured after four probationary years. I explain that the administration has the power to let a teacher go for any reason during these four years. Period.”
Much of the public debate over tenure has focused on whether it is possible to fire tenured teachers who are no longer making the grade. The fact is, contracts between unions and school districts in no way forbid the firing of tenured teachers.
Janotta said he has personally seen two tenured teachers with 20 years of experience let go because of performance issues.
“Did proper steps need to be taken before these teachers were terminated? Of course,” he said. “Were these steps so overwhelming that administration decided it wasn’t worth proceeding with them? Obviously not, or those teachers would still have their jobs.”
Tenure is about due process — not about guaranteeing jobs for life. And it’s not about protecting “bad” teachers — it’s about protecting good teachers.
The typical tenure agreement lays out steps and documentation necessary for dismissing a tenured teacher. Many private corporations also have termination processes and documentation requirements that managers must follow before firing an employee.
Determining which teachers are making the grade depends on a thorough and rigorous evaluation process, and many teachers complain that the evaluation systems at their schools are not functioning. Teachers say they are not evaluated enough, the criteria are murky, and sometimes they receive conflicting evaluations from different administrators.
So why is there so much attention being paid to issues like tenure? Meg Gruber, a teacher from Virginia, believes the issue is largely being driven and pitched to the media by anti-union individuals and organizations. Kelle Stewart, an elementary school teacher from Tennessee, said the heavy focus on tenure keeps the education debate from focusing on real issues that significantly affect public schools.
“Tenure is a red herring that really has nothing at all to do with the problems our schools are facing,“ she
http://neatoday.org/2010/09/17/what-tenure-is-and-what-it’s-not/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)