The long-awaited educator effectiveness bill, expected to be introduced within a few days, would set new baseline standards for the evaluation and tenure of teachers and principals but leave the details to an appointed commission and the State Board of Education.
Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver, has been working on the bill since before the 2010 legislative session started. But the measure has been delayed as he’s tailored his proposal to both include the Council for Educator Effectiveness created by Gov. Bill Ritter in January and to attract support from various education interest groups.
Johnston said Tuesday he now intends to introduce the bill next week, or perhaps Friday.
Here’s a look at the proposal’s contents, based on a draft copy reviewed by Education News Colorado:
- Teacher tenure would be redefined so that new teachers would have to have “three consecutive years of demonstrated effectiveness” to gain tenure, and a tenured teacher would return to probationary status after two consecutive years of “demonstrated ineffectiveness.”
- A teacher could be assigned to a specific school only by mutual consent of the teacher and school’s principal. A teacher who didn’t get a job after two hiring cycles would go on unpaid leave without benefits until rehired.
- Educator evaluations would be based “at least 50 percent” on the academic growth of a teacher’s students, and teachers would be given opportunities to improve their effectiveness through growth plans. There would be “multiple measures” of effectiveness.
- Principal evaluations would be based at least 65 percent on academic growth of students in a school and on the effectiveness of the school’s teachers.
- A teacher’s “demonstrated effectiveness” could be used as a factor when districts lay off teachers.
- The educator effectiveness council would have until Dec. 31 to make recommendations to the state board on the details of teacher evaluations and tenure. (This would move up the deadline set when Ritter created the council.) The council also would develop a system of “career ladders” for educators and a state plan for getting effective educators into underperforming schools.
- The state board would have a March 31, 2011, deadline for issuing formal rules – even if the council doesn’t meet its deadline.
- School boards and boards of cooperative education services would be required to “meet or exceed” state board guidelines when creating their performance evaluation systems. (This is standard “local control” language regularly found in major education bills.)
Although bills often gain sponsors by the time they’re formally introduced, the draft bill carries only Johnston, Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, and Rep. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillion, as prime sponsors.
Teacher tenure and evaluation, although being changed in many states, are touchy issues, particularly with teachers unions like the Colorado Education Association, so it’s hard to gauge the bill’s chances as the legislature goes into its final month.
It’s also unclear how the bill might figure into the state’s application for the second round of Race to the Top. State officials announced Tuesday they will reapply after losing out in the first round. The legislature must adjourn no later than May 12, and the R2T deadline is June 1. So, the bill’s fate will be known before the application is due. Even if the bill were passed, its provisions wouldn’t go into effect until the 2010-11 school year.
And, as always seems to be the case with Colorado education reforms, it’s uncertain how the new evaluation system would be paid for. The primary financial burden would likely fall on school districts, already tightening their belts because of cuts in state aid. Significant parts of Colorado’s original $377 million R2T application would have been used to pay for implementation of the 2008 Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids. Costs of implementing that reform currently are being studied by a contract consultant.
• Text of draft bill (PDF)
Related: Johnston details bill at community group meeting
[...] the option of receiving corporal punishment or accepting a three-day suspension from school…Details emerge on educator effectiveness bill EdNews CO Todd Engdahl: The long-awaited educator effectiveness bill would set new baseline [...]
So, I find it interesting that the bill outlines everything about how an effective / ineffective teachers will be identified (except for oh, I don’t know, ACTUAL guidelines and criteria of any kind), but not an abundance of language surrounding a principal’s evaluation. Yes, 66% of the principal eval is based on student performance and documented teacher effectiveness, but what about the rest? What happens when a principal is found ineffective? There is language that stipulates “licensed personnel” that do not meet criteria will be removed, but nothing conclusive as to a process. Why isn’t central administration a part of this? I know it says “Principal and Teacher Effectiveness”. If you really want to evaluate teachers, continue to fund scholarships for teachers to gain NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION (NBPTS.ORG). Want to talk “researched-based”? recent studies show that schools show increased performance when teachers have completed the NBCT process.
Now let’s talk about cost. How much is this new system going to cost the state and local districts???? This system dictates that instead of once every three (3) years, it will now be annually. For probationary teachers it will be TWICE a year. As it is, principals do not have the TIME to make adequate evaluations of their ENTIRE staff. With districts piling more onto teachers and building administrators as they cut other essential student services (social work, nurse, facilities, and nutrition) not to mention being PROFESSIONALLY DEVELOPED TO DEATH (time out of building during instructional hours) who can do this? Hire more EVALUATORS? Where is the money going to come from? We already have the highest classroom sizes that are outside of peak RESEARCH-BASED instructional guidelines, yet TEACHERS are ineffective??? I will be happy to fulfill any structure that promotes accountability and effectiveness as long as EVERYONE involved from the TOP-DOWN (including central administration, students and their families) and the system is FAIR, FEASIBLE, and FUNDED.
IN THE END, THE CHILDREN STILL PAY and ultimately OUR FUTURE, and will the outcome be different? Probably not until EVERYONE starts working together to look at our children as they were meant to be…children.