Updated 10 p.m. May 12 – The Senate voted 27-8 Wednesday afternoon to re-pass Senate Bill 10-191, the educator effectiveness bill, after accepting House amendments.
A few hours earlier, the House voted 36-29 for the measure.
SB 10-191 cosponsors Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver, (left) and Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centenntial, talked about the importance of the bill before the final Senate vote May 12, 2010.
In the Senate, 13 of the body’s 21 Democrats voted yes. The original April 29 Senate vote was 21-14. Eight Democrats and the House’s one independent joined 27 Republicans in supporting the measure in that chamber. (List of Democrats who voted yes.)
Another education measure, House Concurrent Resolution 10-1002, failed on the House floor Wednesday. It’s the proposed constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to raise taxes for education without voter approval. It needed 44 votes, but the roll call was 35-30. A companion measure, SCR 10-002, also died when the legislature adjourned Wednesday.
Final passage of SB 10-191 makes 2010 the third year in which the legislature has passed major education legislation.
In 2008, lawmakers passed the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, which set out a multi-year program of changing the state and local content standards, tests, high school graduation requirements and college entrance standards.
Last year, the legislature approved the educator identifier bill and a measure that revamps the state system for accrediting districts and schools and for improving the most struggling schools.
All those reforms, especially CAP4K and SB 10-191, have long implementation times and uncertainties about how much they ultimately will cost to implement.
Senate supporters praise bill
Senators spoke for about 45 minutes on SB 10-191 before taking their final vote.
Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver, the driving force behind the measure, evoked the Tuskegee Airmen’s service in World War II as an event that changed views of race and said, “That’s the moment where we stand now in education.” Saying children must no longer be judged by the disadvantages they bring to school, “What matters to us is that every child gets across the finish line.
“We will absolutely measure our success by how many of those children get across the finish line. … We as adults will hold ourselves accountable.”
Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial and Johnston’s Senate co-sponsor, said, “This bill is a game changer.”
Here’s a sampling of comment from other supporters:
- “This is truly an historic moment [but] the obligation for us is now to come through with the funding mechanisms that are needed.” – Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver
- “As the bill has gone through it has improved significantly.” – Sen. Suzanne Williams, D-Aurora, a former teacher who swung from opposition to support.
- “I think it is moving in the right direction.” – Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins and Senate Education Committee chair who previously opposed the bill. He also warned of funding challenges and called for greater parent and student accountability.
- “This has been a truly agonizing process.” – Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, a major force behind Senate amendments who vehemently said the state and its citizens now must step up to adequately fund schools.
The lone voice of opposition was Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, who has doggedly led the fight against the bill in the Senate.
“In my opinion, the amendments made in the House don’t fix the fundamental problems” in the bill, including cost and expanded testing. She called changes to the bill “lipstick on a pig.”
Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, didn’t speak during previous debates, but he struck a nuanced note Wednesday. “The change in this bill is not as dramatic as it proponents hope nor as cataclysmic as its opponents fear. It is a moderate bill.”
The debate in the House
There was no debate on the House floor Wednesday on the educator effectiveness bill, but there was plenty of it Tuesday evening when it passed its big test on a preliminary vote.
Representatives huddled May 11, 2010, during a break in formal debate on SB 10-191.
That standing vote on SB 10-191 came at about 11:15 p.m., after hours of emotional debate and just 45 minutes before a midnight deadline for the decision.
Johnston, said, “I’m very pleased. … All of the core components of the bill are intact. I think Colorado took a courageous step in the right direction.” Johnston watched the latter part of the debate from the House gallery.
Bev Ingle, president of the Colorado Education Association, was somber after the vote, saying her group would have to evaluate the amendments before deciding its position on the bill. CEA has been the leading opponent of the measure. Ingle did say she was disappointed with the way the push for the bill was handled. “It didn’t have to be a power play.”
In a nuanced statement issued by CEA Wednesday, Ingle sounded resigned, writing, “This bill has been much improved” and going on to recount the union’s opposition to the bill and the reasons why.
She continued, “CEA will offer its assistance to the [Educator Effectiveness Council] and help it successfully complete its many charges. And we will also examine the bill and the various education processes it impacts. We will do everything we can to make this work for our teachers and our students.”
The bill passed on a standing House vote Tuesday.
More than a dozen amendments were proposed and debated, with most of the sponsors’ changes passed and opponents’ amendments defeated. Lengthy speeches and lots of questions from opponents propelled the debate for five and a half hours.
The key amendment proposed by sponsors raises the possibility of binding arbitration for teachers who lose tenure because of unsatisfactory evaluations but basically delays that decision until the 2013 legislative session.
A key defeat for opponents came just before 10 p.m. when the House turned back an amendment by Rep. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, that basically would have gutted the bill. Six or seven Democrats and the House’s one independent stood with Republicans to defeat the amendment.
The House had a midnight deadline to pass the bill on preliminary consideration because legislative rules require a final vote be held no sooner than the next calendar day. And, Wednesday is the last day of the 2010 session.
The debate started at about 6:45 p.m. – following more than an hour and a half of Democratic members orating at length on House Concurrent Resolution 10-1002, the proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to raise taxes for education spending without a citizen vote. Because such a resolution requires a two-thirds majority in each house to get on the ballot, it’s not expected to pass.
But supporters of HCR 10-1002 used it to highlight their concerns about the troubled state of education funding in Colorado. And the lengthy speeches were seen as a delaying tactic by opponents who at that point still considered trying to run out the clock. No Republicans spoke on HCR 10-1002. And, no GOP members except Rep. Carole Murray, D-Castle Rock and a co-prime sponsor, spoke on SB 10-191.
The split between Democrats on SB 10-191 was personified by Rep. Karen Middleton (left) and Rep. Nancy Todd. Both represent Aurora districts.
The debate was between Democrats.
The main opposition speakers were Democratic Reps. Merrifield, Nancy Todd of Aurora, Judy Solano of Brighton and Debbie Benefield of Arvada, the core of the traditionalist group on the House Education Committee. All but Benefield are retired teachers; she’s a longtime parent activist in Jefferson County.
They were assisted by Rep. Sarah Gagliardi, D-Arvada, a nurse who generally doesn’t have a high profile on education issues. Gagliardi seemed to have the assignment of asking sponsors to explain the meaning of proposed amendments in detail.
The speeches by Merrifield, Todd, Solano and Benefield alternated between emotional pleas and sharp attacks laced with sarcasm. They repeatedly quoted from letters and e-mails written by teachers opposed to the bill.
“This is not a teacher effectiveness bill. This is a measure-and-punish bill,” Merrifield said during his last of several turns at the podium.
Several other Democrats rose to speak against the bill at length.
But Rep. Karen Middleton, D-Aurora and a former member of the State Board of Education, defended the bill and voted for it. At one point, she rose to chide Rep. Max Tyler, D-Golden, who used an ill-considered analogy about a baker and maggoty flour to talk about teachers who have to deal with difficult students.
A chastened Tyler apologized for his remarks and withdrew an amendment he’d proposed.
Rep. Beth McCann, a Democratic lawyer whose district covers a wide swath of northeast Denver, spoke the most eloquently in support of the bill.
She agreed with critics concerned about the potential costs of the bill and the financial pressures facing schools. “We have to get real in this state and support public education with our money.”
But, McCann said, the bill may provide needed impetus for improved educator effectiveness, and, “These kids can’t wait.”
Co-prime sponsor Rep. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon, and Murray kept their cool at the microphone under criticism of the bill, briefly explaining amendments and successfully urging defeat of hostile ones.
Negotiations went on for hours
Scanlan spent much of her afternoon out of the House chamber, working on amendments, conferring with House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver (and a bill supporter), and talking to lobbyists, Johnston and other legislative leaders.
Cluster of lobbyists grouped and regrouped in the House lobby and along the second-floor brass rails, conferring on proposed amendments and talking on their cell phones. Department of Education officials and more lobbyists watched the debate from the gallery.
An emotional Rep. Nancy Todd, D-Aurora, repeated her fears about SB 10-191 at the end of the long May 11 debate.
An emotional Todd returned to the microphone alone after the voting was done and as the House was about to adjourn.
The bill is “not a message of hope and encouragement for teachers. … I am so sad at the divisiveness this bill has caused in our state and legislature. … I do want you to hear my heart, because my heart is speaking for 40,000 teachers in the state of Colorado,” she said.
Interestingly enough, little of the discussion focused on the long timelines and multiple decision points that were amended into the bill by the Senate.
The existing Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness will develop definitions of teacher and principal effectiveness and is assigned with developing many other details of evaluation systems, cost and educator improvement. After the council is done, the State Board of Education will issue regulations, which will be subject to review by the legislature.
There will be testing of evaluation systems after that, with the full program not going into effect statewide for five years.
The amendment offered by the sponsors and added on the floor Tuesday directs the council to develop proposals for use of binding arbitration in the cases of teachers who lose non-probationary status because of unsatisfactory evaluations. The council will make its recommendations directly to the legislature, not to the state board.
CEA lobbyists said that amendment was important to them, but the union remains opposed to the bill pending review. But the amendment is of concern to some school district interests.
However, the arbitration amendment was seen as the factor that ended the possibility of an attempted “filibuster” and allowed the debate and vote to go forward.
Measure sparked intense debate
The bill has generated an emotional, complex and sometimes over-simplified debate over how to measure teacher quality, whether standardized tests are an accurate measure, cuts in school funding, the wisdom of taking action this year, lack of parental involvement in schools, the political clout of the CEA and how teachers are treated in society.
Many opponents of the bill feel double-crossed by the measure because it would expand on and change the work of the council, a group created by executive order in January after agreement by a wide variety of education interests, including the CEA. The council was supposed to develop definitions of principal and teacher effectiveness and make recommendations to the legislature and State Board of Education by the fall of 2011.
The bill would give the council additional duties and put its functions into state law. A key feature of both the executive order and the bill is the requirement that 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation be based on student academic growth over time. The bill also applies that standard to principals. And the bill specifies that growth will be measured by a variety of assessments, not just the annual CSAP.
The bill also requires mutual consent between a principal and a teacher for placement in a school, although a House committee amendment requires a principal consult with other teachers in a school. The bill also make satisfactory evaluations a factor in layoffs, and for the first time would require non-probationary teachers to return to probation after two unsatisfactory evaluations.
That, and cost, have been a major sticking point for CEA and led to amendments that would give teachers some appeal rights in cases of unsatisfactory evaluations.
While CEA and a large corps of Democratic legislators have led the charge against the bill, it’s been endorsed by the American Federation of Teachers-Colorado, the Colorado associations of school boards and school executives, the Colorado Children’s Campaign, the state board, education Commissioner Dwight Jones, Ritter and his three immediate predecessors and numerous business, education and community groups.
Some supporters hope passage of the bill will improve Colorado’s chance in the second-round Race to the Top competition, but the sponsors have been downplaying the importance of that.
Senate
Democrats who voted for the bill on final passage Wednesday were Bob Bacon of Fort Collins, Joyce Foster of Denver, Dan Gibbs of Silverthorne, Rollie Heath of Boulder, Mary Hodge of Brighton, Mike Johnston of Denver, Majority Leader John Morse of Colorado springs, Linda Newell of Denver, Chris Romer of Denver, President Brandon Shaffer of Boulder, Pat Steadman of Denver, Abel Tapia of Pueblo and Suzanne Williams of Aurora.
Bacon, Morse, Shaffer, Steadman, Tapia and Williams voted no when the Senate first passed the bill on April 29.
House
The Democratic representatives who voted yes were co-prime sponsor Christine Scanlan of Dillon, Karen Middleton of Aurora and Joe Rice of Littleton, plus Denver representatives Lois Court, Mark Ferrandino, Jeanne Labuda, Beth McCann and House Speaker Terrance Carroll. Independent Kathleen Curry of Gunnison, a former Democrat, also voted yes.
Ferrandino and Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, provided the votes needed to get the bill out of the House Appropriations Committee on a 7-6 vote last Friday. Riesberg voted no on the bill Wednesday.
Do your homework
- Bill as initially passed by Senate
- House Education Committee amendments
- House Appropriation Committee amendments
- House floor amendments (start on page 1794)
Now that the “Business of Education” has won, our children will lose. Badly needed classroom resources (money) will go to the training of administrators and the Educational businesses that stand to make millions from taxpayers. Once again, the private sector will drain the public coffers for personal gain, thanks to Michael Johnston, who will leave for far greater political rewards. DINOs, you now dominate the Colorado Democratic Party. I will switch my party affiliation and become an Independent. Dems, good luck next fall, you have double-crossed some of your most devoted supporters.
When the Democrats regained control of the legislature and, then, the governor’s office, many educators, especially classroom teachers, were confident that there would be a new respect and compassion for education, educators, student and parents. Instead of respect and compassion, it’s been primarily disrespect and disdain for education and especially for classroom teachers. SB 191 is just the latest example of that attitude. Tying teacher evaluation to student achievement is to continue focusing upon the teacher and ignoring the role of the student. There is no provision in SB 191 for student or parent accountability. Nor, is there any substantive evidence that such legislation is valid. Michael Johnston referred to research that he stated validated his approach. Has anyone seen any of that research? How about those Democrats (Conservadems) who rejected the counsel of Mike Merrifield, Judy Solano and other classroom teachers and instead followed the lead of the inexperienced Johnston? They may soon ask, “What was I thinking?” Well, as stated, SB 191 is just the latest example of the inability of Democrats to deliver on educational issues. Save for the diligent work of Andrew Romanoff who managed to secure legislation to allocate funds for the maintenance of buildings in need of immediate repair, most attention has been devoted to enabling charter schools at the expense of those students in regular schools. In other words, ignoring the common good in order to accomodate a few.
Certainly, this legislation has some redeeming values. For one thing, it’s initiated discussion on a vital topic. Unfortunately, it’s been primarily a monologue – Johnston and his supporters lecturing to opponents that they’re wrong and against kids. This entire process has been disrespectful to teachers. Were I still teaching (now retired), I would be seeking alternatives to being aligned with a particular political party. Both Democrats and Republicans have demonstrated the tendency to scapegoat rather than identifying problems, studying them and proposing studied solutions. Instead, what is proposed is SB 191 that incorrectly identifies teachers as the principal element in student achievement. So, Democrats may pay a high political price in November and beyond for neglecting such a large faction of their political base. To be fair, most Democratic legislators did not desert the common good, but they failed to forcefully defend those who had the courage and wisdom to speak truth to power.
I have always thought that if there was going to be significant positive change in public education it would be the democrats who could make it happen. Now some brave democrats have done that. We now have a chance to raise the badly tarnished reputation of our own professional standards. I hope that educators will step up to the plate and instead of screaming “no, it wasn’t me,” contribute constructively to the conversation about what some professional standards could and should look like.
The premise that the argument above resides on, and I quote, “what is proposed is SB 191 that incorrectly identifies teachers as the principal element in student achievement.” is wrong and misguided.
In fact we do have good evidence that teachers and schools can indeed be the principal element in a child’s education. I want to be one of those teachers in one of those schools. It is sad for me to see the teachers pointing at parents, administration, and even the students to lay blame as some of the nay saying democrats attempted to do on the floor yesterday (shame on you Max Taylor.)
We have the skills, the tools, and the obligation to ensure that our students learn as most teachers prove every day. And I, for one, believe that there are reliable ways to measure and demonstrate student learning without selling out to business interests.
Let’s hope that teachers have it in them to provide strong leadership in the implementation of this law. We’re the ones who have the best chance of getting it right.
As a retired principal I would have had no problem with either my effectiveness or that of my staff being measured by how much academic growth we achieved with students. The problem lies with the measure. Students have to have a dog in this hunt and under our current testing system, they don’t. I have watched kids many times over the years give far less than their best effort on CSAP because they know it doesn’t count for anything.
Amen, B.J.
I find it highly unfortunate that the legislature can have so many powerful concepts and coordinate these so poorly. First and foremost, CSAP will need to be replaced with an assessment more directly accountable to students; unfortunately, the bill to remove CSAP that was introduced and passed by the Senate and house during this session died on its return route.
Second, CAP4K’s replacement of Cornell units with knowledge requirements will require measures of student learning that will determine whether students advance and ultimately graduate; unfortunately, this session the legislature delayed its implementation until 2012-2013.
Meanwhile, SB 191 will be applied to faculty throughout the state in August. This could be magnificent reform if it were complete enough to convince the educational community of its effectiveness. As it stands currently, I struggle to accept that my colleagues will not simply find ways to cheat a broken system that may not be fixed until these habits become the norm.
B.J.Pell says:
May 14, 2010 at 9:28 pm
The problem lies with the measure. Students have to have a dog in this hunt and under our current testing system, they don’t. I have watched kids many times over the years give far less than their best effort on CSAP because they know it doesn’t count for anything.
So in other words, it doesn’t matter how many years a teacher devoted her life to, she will be judged and terminated with no pension if a student who couldn’t care less fails, no matter how much effort the teacher put into trying to teach. It isn’t fair. The parents of these lazy students should be working with the teachers and the school boards and their kids to assure they pass, and if the student fails, the parents need to enforce summer school and other studies. Colorado teachers are the victim here, not the students. Too much “charity” is given to “minorities” who chose to ride on the financial coat-tails of the system.
Shame on you for passing this bill.
The same well intentioned fools who supported securepera.org re SB 10-001 were taken for a ride by the elite democrat controlled general assembly this year @ SB 10-191. Is that payback ?