Fewer Denver teachers unable to find jobs

That’s a reversal of what’s occurred for at least three years, when the poorest schools were more likely to be assigned teachers who either did not apply to be there or were not chosen for hiring by the principal.

As of Thursday, 30 percent of Denver schools receiving Title 1 dollars – federal funds designed to mitigate high-poverty rates – were given teachers for fall from what’s commonly called the “direct” or “forced” placement list. Principals generally cannot refuse to accept such teachers.

And 52 percent of schools affluent enough not to earn Title 1 dollars, a minority of Denver Public Schools, were assigned teachers who are guaranteed a job by state law but who have been unable to secure a position on their own. The job guarantee comes after three years of experience.

Click here to see the school-by-school breakdown of teacher direct-placements for 2010-11.

In contrast, in 2009-10, 63 percent of DPS’ Title 1 schools received at least one teacher from the direct-placement list while only 38 percent of non-Title 1 schools did so. In 2008-09, 57 percent of Title 1 schools received direct-placed teachers versus 44 percent of non-Title 1 schools.

And in 2007-08, three-fourths of Denver’s Title 1 schools received direct-placed teachers compared to half of the non-Title 1 schools.

“For far too long in Denver, as in other urban school districts, the highest-poverty, most-struggling schools have been disproportionately impacted by forced placement,” said Superintendent Tom Boasberg. “And that is no longer the situation in Denver.”

What impact the change might have on achievement is unclear.

Boasberg announced changes to the direct-placement policy in February, drawing concern from some teachers and applause from some parents.

He said DPS would limit the placement of teachers in high-poverty schools and prohibit it in the lowest-performing schools – those rated “red” or on probation, the lowest of four DPS school ratings.

Henry Roman, the president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, said the announcement implied such teachers were to blame for the performance of those schools.

Teachers typically end up on the direct-placement list after their school enrollment drops or a program changes. They can then interview at other schools but, if they don’t land a spot and they have three or more years of experience, they go on the list.

On Wednesday, as he scanned the 2010-11 list of placements, Roman noted it largely consisted of one or two teachers sent to a school.

“I really don’t see an impact that could be big enough to say it’s impacting the schools in any negative way,” he said. “This is very minimal.”

A total of 61 teachers, some working part-time, had been placed in DPS schools as of this week. Another three teachers are still unassigned – they could work as substitutes if they have not been placed by fall. That’s 64 teachers in a district that employs more than 4,000.

Also, the numbers of direct-placed teachers in DPS has been cut in half, down from 170 in 2007-08, largely because of changes to transfer policies worked out by DPS and the teachers’ union.

Still, Boasberg’s drive to change direct-placement continues to draw national attention.

Tuesday, the national journal Education Week highlighted DPS in its story headlined “Mutual Consent Teacher Placement Gains Ground.”

Boasberg has repeatedly said the quality of direct-placed teachers is not the issue – instead, it’s the mutual desire of teacher and principal to work together.

“We … strongly believe that schools are very much mission-driven organizations that thrive when there is a cohesive culture that everyone in the building fully buys into and supports,” he said.

The goal, he said, is “zero” direct placements, a goal likely to be aided by the recent passage of Senate Bill 191, the controversial measure that overhauls principal and teacher evaluation.

Part of the law, which is being phased in through 2014, states experienced teachers “unable to secure a mutual consent assignment at a school … after twelve months or two hiring cycles” will be placed on unpaid leave.

It’s a big change from the current law, which puts the onus on districts to find jobs for teachers with more than three years of experience.

Roman, with the teachers’ union, said it’s unclear how many teachers might be affected by the change. He worries teachers may become more reluctant to switch schools or chance tougher assignments.

“And I don’t think that is good because, at the end of the day, you always want to encourage teachers to go to hard-to-serve schools,” he said.

An Ed News analysis of direct placements in DPS between 2007 and 2009 found 49 teachers were on that list more than once, including five teachers who were placed three times in three years.

Denver’s 25 “red” schools, its lowest-performing, had not been assigned direct-placements as of Thursday, though figures provided by the districts changed over several days.

For example, the district’s first response to an Open Records Act request by Ed News listed a part-time art teacher placed at Gilpin K-8. Shayne Spalten, DPS’ head of human resources, said that was an error.

In 2009-10, 20 percent of direct-placed teachers were placed in “red” schools, those listed as “on probation” for failing to meet standards on the district’s School Performance Framework.

In addition to a direct-placement spreadsheet, DPS provided a separate listing of 24 experienced teachers sent to schools to relieve what are expected to be large class sizes this fall.

That includes two teachers offered to North and West high schools, both “red” schools. Principals at the schools were told they qualified for class-size relief but that it must come in the form of those teachers.

Spalten said those teachers are not considered direct placements because the principals could have refused to accept them and because the assignments are for one-year-only. In addition, the positions are funded by the district rather than the school.

On the other hand, she noted, the positions aren’t necessarily mutual-consent hires either. Those are school-funded and continuing, rather than temporary, positions.

Roman said DPS’ definition of “mutual consent” sounds more like principal consent. For example, he asked, why not allow teachers on the direct-placement list to interview at all schools, including red schools?

Spalten said they’re free to do so. If an experienced and unassigned teacher interviews at a red school, and the principal wants to make that hire, that’s mutual consent and that’s what DPS wants.

What Boasberg’s policy change prohibits, she said, is the placement of a teacher, without the principal’s consent, at a red school.

Nancy Mitchell can be reached at nmitchell@ednewscolorado.org or 303-478-4573.

In some districts, teacher paychecks will grow by a few dollars in 2010-11 as districts follow through on increases earned for another year of work and the completion of more college credits.

But even those annual bumps in pay, which commonly range from 2 to 3 percent and which are a given in better budget years, have been whittled down in seven of the state’s ten largest school districts.

Teachers in Cherry Creek agreed to cut their experience bumps to .5 percent. In Denver and the Adams Five Star districts, teachers agreed to delay those increases for months to ease the financial burden.

And in Douglas County and St. Vrain, teachers expect no increases at all for an additional year of work.

“I think it is fair to say that overall, teacher salaries are being frozen,” said Deborah Fallin, spokeswoman for the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union.

Not just teachers – the minute jumps or static wages likely also apply to classroom aides and principals. It’s common for districts to negotiate a deal with their teachers and then apply its terms to all employee groups.

In some cases, teachers are the only ones getting more money, however slight. All non-instructional staff pay in Cherry Creek was frozen for 2010-11. In Westminster, administrators will make the same pay next year as they did in 2008-09.

Tradeoffs in teacher pay: Englewood, Colorado Springs

Negotiations between districts and unions dragged on for months last year, as district leaders tried to prepare for the darkening budget forecast and union leaders sought to make gains before it really hit.

On Sept. 15, 2009, Education News Colorado reported six of the state’s largest school districts had yet to come to terms for 2009-10. As of June 25, eight of Colorado’s ten biggest districts were already done for 2010-11.

“It’s difficult times and I think people are being pretty straightforward about what’s happening,” said Fallin, who collects data on bargaining statewide. “It feels to me like districts and their associations are having maybe a little more open conversation.”

Scroll down to see details of contracts for the state’s ten largest districts.

Last year’s negotiations typically netted the annual bumps for experience and education plus across-the-board raises to try to match inflation. In Denver, for example, teachers got their earned increases plus a 2.5 percent raise.

But few mentioned such raises for 2010-11 – the focus instead was on the experience bump, the once-sacred “step” for another year of work.

Giving it up, even for one year, is “a pretty big deal” for teachers because it builds over time, said Brian Ewert, a former human resources chief in Douglas County who now runs Englewood schools.

“It impacts your lifetime earnings to not get that step,” Ewert said. “If you annuitize a step over a 30-year career … that can be a significant amount of money.”

It’s also a significant cost for districts, who expect the historic 6.3 percent cut in state education funding they endured for 2010-11 will be repeated for 2011-12.

So districts such as Englewood and Colorado Springs worked with their teachers to trade the permanent “step” for an annual bonus for a year.  In Colorado Springs, teachers will receive a 1 percent stipend. In Englewood, the stipend is .3 percent.

For teachers, the win is that they all get a little something in 2010-11. In those districts, and most others, teachers top out of the experience bumps at 10 or 12 years so veteran educators aren’t helped by “steps” alone.

Such tradeoffs are one example of how districts are working to keep state cuts from hammering their biggest expenditure – their people, who typically consume at least 70 percent of their budgets.

But the strategies weren’t able to stop, in many districts, the loss of jobs and the pain of furlough days.

Story continues after graphic.

New teachers hit hardest: Douglas County

Fallin said the CEA has received no notices of layoffs for teachers with more than three years of experience –those whose jobs are protected by state law.

That means districts are cutting positions through normal attrition and shedding teachers on one-year-only or probationary contracts, indicating less than three years in the classroom.

“Temps, probationaries and anybody who goes away – retirement, maternity, whatever sort of leave – is probably not going to be replaced,” Fallin said. “It will be very specialized jobs that will be posted and hired, I think, in districts …

“Teachers just coming out of college are probably going to be hard-pressed to find jobs.”

Districts across the state reported jobs gone – Las Animas, a tiny district east of Pueblo, cut nine teachers. Westminster trimmed 16 instructional staff and won’t fill four administrative vacancies, including chief academic officer. Jefferson County, the state’s largest district, eliminated 136 jobs, including 68 teachers.

But it is Douglas County, the affluent suburban district sandwiched between Denver and Colorado Springs, that appears to have taken the hardest hit.

The 60,000-student district initially estimated 380 jobs would be lost, with half of those teachers and the rest clerical and support staff.

Doug Hartman, the district’s human resources director, said Friday that the district wound up non-renewing the contracts of 176 temporary and 118 probationary teachers – a total of 294.

More than half of those, or 164, were able to find other teaching slots in the district, he said. That leaves 130 teachers still searching. It’s unlikely they will all find jobs in Douglas County.

“We will be doing some hiring,” Hartman said, “but probably not 130.”

The district does have some vacancies – on Friday, its website listed openings for 13 teaching jobs, three administrators and 22 clerical and support staff.

But nearly all of the teaching vacancies are in traditionally hard-to-fill subjects, such as teaching math, students with special needs and English language learners.

Early retirements ease the pain: Fort Collins, Sheridan

Several districts sought to accelerate their usual attrition with sweetened retirement deals good only in 2009-10.

That proved particularly successful in Fort Collins, which leaders estimated they needed to cut 139 jobs, including 60 certified instructional positions, on the way to trimming $12 million.

Dave Montoya, the district’s budget manager, said 63 employees took the early retirement incentive. Twenty-five were teachers.

“We actually had more people take advantage of it than we were expecting,” he said. “It allowed us to actually have voluntary exits instead of forced exits.”

In Sheridan, a 1,600-student district at Denver’s southwestern tip, district leaders dipped into reserves to fund buyouts, prompting two teachers and two classroom aides to leave earlier.

That may not sound like a lot, said Superintendent Mike Clough, but “there’s a great difference” between the salaries of those at the top of the scale and those nearer to the bottom.

Those savings, and more reserves, were used to give Sheridan teachers one of the best contracts for 2010-11 – they received their bumps for experience and education plus a .5 percent raise.

It’s recognition, in part, for the two weeks of training that Sheridan teachers do during the summer. They’re paid for that time, Clough said.

“But still, traditionally for teachers, it’s time off,” he said. “So we think it’s asking a lot of our teachers to step up and do that and they have gladly done so.”

Furlough days for some: Westminster, Littleton, Las Animas

A few districts will implement furlough days in 2010-11, including Westminster, with a single districtwide furlough day, and Littleton Public Schools, where all employees will work two fewer days – and receive two fewer days’ pay.

It’s worse in Las Animas, a high-poverty district of 600 students in southeastern Colorado, where the furlough days will number three.

Superintendent Scott Cuckow said his small district suffered the double blow of the state funding cut and the loss of $800,000 in state and federal grants, which ran out after 2009-10.

The district cut 9 teachers and the equivalent of 8.5 clerical and classroom aide jobs for 2010-11. That leaves 35 teachers.

“I’m not regretting having those grants because they helped us a lot,” Cuckow said. “What hurt was letting the people know they no longer have a job because the money is no longer there.”

He said the district’s elementary school, a 2007 recipient of the state’s “Distinguished School” award for its progress with low-income children, is suffering the most from the job losses.

“We believe that if a child can read by third grade, they’re set up to succeed in life so we really target reading skills K-3,” he said. “There will be a lot less effective strategic interventions for those young kids, that’s what we lost.”

For next year, Cuckow said his board is considering eliminating one of the district’s three administrators – the elementary principal, the high school principal or the superintendent.

Worrying about worse in 2011-12: Mapleton, Boulder

Teachers in Mapleton Public Schools, just north of Denver, likely hope it doesn’t get any tougher than 2009-10. Pay was frozen for all employees and the district shut down for five days to save money.

But this fall, thanks to voters who approved a tax hike last November, teachers and other workers will see a 2.5 percent increase to their base pay. Increases for experience and education, though, will not be funded.

Leaders in several other districts are mulling a tax increase in hopes of easing the financial stress in 2011-12.

In Littleton, board members voted June 10 to place a tax question before voters this fall, hoping to generate $12 million a year. Boulder board members informally agreed June 21 to take similar action, though they’re still deciding how much of a tax hike they’ll seek.

One of the districts struggling the most with funding cuts, however, has opted not to pursue the ballot option. Douglas County board members made the decision after a survey of likely voters showed it was likely to fail.

“It is evident that the severe economic downturn continues to weigh heavily on the minds of Douglas County voters,” board president John Carson wrote this month in a letter to his community. “Continued shared sacrifice is necessary …

“While we are hopeful for a 2011 election, the board also recognizes that if public sentiment and current economic conditions do not improve, it may be imprudent to ask our community for additional funds in 2011 as well.”  

Nancy Mitchell can be reached at nmitchell@ednewscolorado.org or 303-478-4573.

State Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver, facing camera, hugged Gov. Bill Ritter after Ritter signed S.B. 191 into law. State Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, is left and House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, and Rep. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon, are right.

Before Gov. Bill Ritter on Thursday signed into law a dramatic overhaul of Colorado’s long-standing teacher evaluation system, he reached out to the many educators who fought to kill it.

Leaders of the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers’  union, which lobbied against Senate Bill 191 with rallies and radio ads, did not attend the crowded signing ceremony in the west foyer of the Capitol.

“From the time I began running for office, the Colorado Education Association has been supportive of our efforts and a … partner in reform,” Ritter said. “I understand that they considered Senate Bill 191 a bridge too far.

“But I think the teachers and principals who work in our classrooms every day are going to understand we are going to provide them greater tools for success … And over time we’re going to get to the place where we’re working together toward that goal.”

CEA President Beverly Ingle released a statement after the signing that pledged the 40,000-member union is “committed to doing everything we can to make sure the law is implemented correctly.”

“We are pleased that some of the changes we suggested to the bill were included but we still have a number of concerns,” Ingle said. “We will do what’s right for the teachers and the students of Colorado.”

Brenda Smith, president of the smaller union in Colorado, the American Federation of Teachers, testified in support of the bill and was there for Thursday’s signing.

Johnston, center, leans on a member of Project VOYCE, Voices Of Youth Changing Education, which supported the bill, and chats with Spence before Thursday's bill signing.

Smith issued a statement saying AFT Colorado “worked in collaboration with the bill’s sponsors to improve the  measure so that teacher evaluation systems will be good for kids and fair to teachers.”

“Some so-called reformers want to dictate change from the outside – an approach that almost always fails,” Smith said. “Then you have change agents who say: Let’s work together and figure things out … that’s what happened with this legislation in Colorado.”

State Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver, the bill’s primary author, singled out Ritter, state education Commissioner Dwight Jones and Christine Scanlan, the bill’s Democratic House sponsor, for thanks. Scanlan successfully navigated the schism in her party over education reform to secure enough votes to pass the bill while Jones was an early and public advocate.

Johnston said he woke one morning to a phone ”exploding” with text messages about Jones’ surprise endorsement of the bill in the Denver Post. That letter prompted the CEA to withhold support of the state’s Race to the Top grant application.

“It would have been very easy for you to stay out of this bill,” Johnston told Jones.

Education Commissioner Dwight Jones talks about the work ahead in implementing a new educator evaluation system at Thursday's signing ceremony.

As for Ritter, Johnston said meeting the governor helped convince him to leave his principal’s job for political office.

“I wasn’t sure I wanted to do it,” the freshman lawmaker said. ”It wasn’t until we met that … I think we both believe this really was a noble and honest calling where good people try to get good things done.”

Despite the celebratory air, the hugs and congratulations, several speakers said much of the work lies ahead. Today, members of the Governor’s Council for Educator Effectiveness, charged with defining teacher and principal effectiveness, will meet for the first time since the bill passed.

And Johnston went straight from the signing ceremony to O’Connell Middle School in Lakewood, where he met with about 25 teachers curious about what the new law means for them. See EdNews’ blog about the meeting.

He said before he left that he sees S.B. 191 as the first step in a two-part process: Part 1 is restoring the public’s confidence in education. Part 2 is asking that public to better support schools through a funding increase expected on the state ballot in 2011.

“The work we are about to begin will enable Colorado to lead in this national movement” of education reform, Jones said. “What is required in this bill is hard work. But this is the right work.”

Hear Gov. Bill Ritter reach out to the Colorado Education Association before signing S.B. 191:

Hear Sen. Mike Johnston talk about his hopes for the new educator effectiveness law:

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 the bill 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.

Well 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 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.

Democrats who voted yes

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)

Democratic Reps. Christine Scanlan of Dillon (a prime sponsor) and Karen Middleton of Aurora voted for Senate Bill 10-191, along with all five committee Republicans.

The early hours of the House Education Committee's May 6 hearing on Senate Bill 10-191 played to a packed house at the Capitol.

Voting no were Democratic Reps. Debbie Benefield of Arvada, Cherilyn Peniston of Westminster, Judy Solano of Brighton, Sue Schafer of Wheat Ridge, Nancy Todd of Aurora and chair Mike Merrifield of Colorado Springs.

Some of them, particularly Solano and Todd, had sometimes-harsh comments about the bill, the process of drafting it, standardized testing and about the whole course of Colorado education reform in recent years. All are former teachers except Benefield, a longtime parent activist.

“I can’t support a bill that I think is an insult to my profession,” said Merrifield, a retired music teacher serving his last session in the legislature.

“This bill has nothing to do with improving the effectiveness of teachers,” said Solano. “This bill scapegoats teachers for all the inadequacies of public education.”

Scanlan, a former Summit County school board member, defended the proposal in her closing remarks. “I believe it’s what we need to do. I believe it will make the difference we’re seeking for our kids. I believe it’s the start of a new era.”

Key amendments added by the committee included:

• Teacher effectiveness, then seniority, will be considered when layoffs are made.
• Non-probationary teachers with good evaluations can carry their non-probationary status to other districts, although that won’t necessarily affect pay.
• Teachers as well as the principal will participate in the mutual consent process for teacher placement that the bill would mandate.
• A strengthened appeals process for teachers who receive ineffective evaluations.
• Costs for the initial steps of implementing the law will be covered by a Department of Education contingency fund, if federal funding, such as Race to the Top money, isn’t available.

The bill requires that 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation be based on student academic growth, measured by multiple assessment. Merrifield proposed an amendment proposes a figure on one-third but then withdrew the idea, saying he’ll likely propose it during floor debate.

The committee decision came at the end of an 11-hour meeting, 10 hours of which were devoted to testimony, debate and – at times – high emotion on SB 10-191.

Both sides mustered teachers and parents to speak for their sides, some telling personal stories. Administrators and business leaders supported the bill. There even was testimony from people who weren’t there.

Merrifield read a letter from education scholar and author Diane Ravitch, who wrote, “Colorado can’t fire its way to better teachers.”

Laurie Hirschfeld Zeller, president of A+ Denver, read a letter from former Denver Mayor Fedrico Peña, who had testified passionately at the Senate Education Committee hearing on the bill.

“I’m so sorry Federico wasn’t here because I was armed and ready for him,” Merrifield said.

The last witness, Associate Commissioner Rich Wenning of the Colorado Department of Education, took the brunt of sharp comments from committee critics but cooly defended the bill.

“We are dealing with a major systemic reform. … It’s really comparable to the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids. … Statutes catalyze change.”

The bill must go to the House Appropriations Committee before it can go to the floor. It’s expected to be heard in committee Monday and, if passed, on the floor shortly thereafter. Lawmakers have a Wednesday adjournment deadline.

While the bill has broad support among education reform groups, business leaders, the state Board of Education, Commissioner Dwight Jones and Gov. Bill Ritter, the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, is strongly opposed.

The American Federation of Teachers-Colorado, which represents Douglas County teachers, came out in support of the bill this week. Its witnesses led off the marathon testimony session that started at 1:30 Thursday afternoon. Testimony from dozens of witnesses lasted more than eight hours.

Interest groups on both sides have lobbied this issue heavily with e-mails and personal contact with lawmakers. The CEA is a traditional contributor to Democratic legislative candidates, giving it a certain amount of clout. The union has been running radio ads, and groups supporting the bill ran a full-page ad in a Denver newspaper Thursday morning.

Both sides also have carefully selected their witnesses for the hearings in the House and Senate education committees. (Many of the witnesses at Thursday’s House hearing were repeaters from the earlier hearing before the Senate Education Committee.)

Sponsored by a bipartisan team of senators and representatives, the major provisions of the bill would create new teacher and principal evaluation systems and tie evaluations to gaining – and losing – non-probationary status.

The bill is similar to legislation being discussed in other states and is part of a national push for reforms in educator evaluations. Some observers feel passing the bill could help Colorado’s bid for round two of Race to the Top.

If passed, the system wouldn’t fully go into effect until 2014-15, after a lengthy process of development by the already-existing Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness, issuance of rules by the State Board of Education, legislative review and two years of development and testing.

(The council was created by a governor’s executive order in January and assigned to develop definitions of teacher and principal effectiveness, study other issues of educator effectiveness and make recommendations to the legislature. SB 10-191 basically retains that role for the council but adds specific policy guidelines for evaluation and tenure and creates larger roles for the state board and the legislature. The council has met twice and already is working on effectiveness definitions.)

The bill would require annual teacher and principal evaluations (more frequently than generally is done now) and tying 50 percent of the evaluations to student academic growth. The state Department of Education would assist school districts in developing a variety of student assessments in addition the annual statewide CSAP tests. (The CSAPS, scheduled to be replaced in a few years, don’t cover all grades or all subjects, requiring additional kinds of tests if all teachers are to be evaluated based partly on student growth.)

The bill also would require that tenure be earned after three consecutive years of effectiveness as determined by evaluations. Tenured teachers could be returned to probation if they didn’t have good evaluations for two years. (This part of the bill is particularly worrisome to CEA, which feels it would take away due-process rights for non-probationary teachers and expose them to removal by administrators who unfairly use bad evaluations.)

The bill also would require the mutual consent for placement of teachers in specific schools and establishes procedures for handling teachers who aren’t placed. It also specifies that evaluations can be considered when layoffs are made, in addition to seniority. (CEA doesn’t like this part of the bill either.)

A Senate amendment would create an appeal right for non-probationary teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluations, although the bill’s sponsors intend that detailed appeal procedures would be left up to district-union contract negotiations.

The bill also includes external factors that could be considered in evaluations, such as student mobility, the percentage of at-risk students in a school and numbers of special education students.

Once state standards for evaluation are in place, local school districts would be required to “meet or exceed” those standards in their evaluation systems.

The bill estimates about $240,000 in administrative costs for each of the next two years.

CEA has expressed a strong preference for a different process for changing the current system. Once definitions of effectiveness are created, then a new evaluation system should be set up and tested. Only after that, the CEA believes, should the decision be made about how to use the evaluation system in probation, school placement and layoff decisions.

The union also has raised concerns about the potential costs of effective and fair new evaluation systems, both for the state and for school districts.

• Text of the bill as passed by the Senate but before House Ed amendments

• Texts of amendments adopted by House Ed

The Democrats who voted for the bill were Joyce Foster of Denver, Dan Gibbs of Silverthorne, Rollie Heath of Boulder, Mary Hodge of Brighton, Mike Johnston of Denver, Linda Newell of Denver and Chris Romer of Denver.

Senators discussed SB 10-191 for about 45 minutes before the roll-call vote.

Johnston, the bill’s prime mover, responded to critics’ concerns about lack of funding by saying, “I absolutely agree this is about resources” but that “in the meantime we can’t say we’re going to do nothing. I believe this bill helps us in one small step of the way.”

The Denver Democrat stressed that the five-year timeline for implementing the new program will allow plenty of time for crafting a good program.

“We need to find it within ourselves to find the [financial] support in the next five years … to make this a success,” said Heath.

Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, has led the charge against the bill, voicing many of the concerns raised by the state’s largest teachers union, the Colorado Education Association.

“There are two big things wrong with this bill,” she said, starting her eight minutes of remarks. “First, this bill is a huge unfunded mandate.”

The second problem, Hudak argued, is, “What this bill is about is eliminating tenure.” The bill “is not about helping teachers become effective.”

Saying “this whole discussion has been extremely difficult for me,” Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, told his colleagues he wasn’t sure how he would vote. “I wish sometimes we could vote maybe.” Bacon, a former teacher and school board member and chair of the Senate Education Committee, ultimately voted no.

The Senate  gave preliminary approval to the bill Thursday evening after more than six hours of debate on a blizzard of amendments.

A focus of the debate was on whether the bill offers sufficient due-process protections to teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluations and who would revert to probationary status because of consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations.

Critics of the bill also tried to amend its provisions requiring mutual consent of principals and teachers for placement in schools.

Hudak, a former teacher and State Board of Education member, led the charge to tone the bill down but her amendments were repeatedly rebuffed on voice and standing votes by the coalition of Democrats and Republicans who are backing the bill.

On major points, the measure passed little changed from the heavily amended version approved by the Senate Education Committee.

Hudak’s key amendment would have deleted the portion of the bill requiring non-probationary teachers to be returned to probation after unsatisfactory evaluations.

“This is the heart of the objections to this bill,” Hudak said. If this section were removed, “you would end the civil war.”

The amendment failed on a standing vote.

Amendments that did pass would require the Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness to develop standards for different levels of effectiveness and cost estimates for the new program, add some provisions for professional development of unsatisfactory teachers, and allow individual districts and unions to apply for waivers from the bill’s mutual consent provisions.

After the amending was done Thursday, supporters of the bill touted its importance.

Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver

Johnston was low-key, saying, “There’s no doubt that change is always hard for adults, but there’s no doubt that the status quo is harder for kids.”

Heath said, “I hope none of us underestimate what we’re doing here in terms of the sea change. … This is a monumental change, it truly is.”

Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, invoked the name of former Senate President Peter Groff, saying that advocate of school reform would be proud of the bill.

During the concluding discussion, Sen. Suzanne Williams, D-Aurora, sounded the only negative note, saying she supports reform but that the issue of due process still needs to be resolved.

Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Wetminster (file photo)

Hudak didn’t speak during the wrapup debate Thursday.

The bill will move next week to the House, where the due-process debate will be rekindled and some members may be more skeptical than their Senate colleagues. Still, supporters feel they have a reasonable chance of passage in the House.

The bill is a complex one – and it was made more complicated in places by Thursday’s amendments.

Sponsored by a bipartisan team of senators and representatives, the major provisions of the bill would create new teacher and principal evaluation systems and tie evaluations to gaining – and losing – non-probationary status.

The bill is similar to legislation being discussed in other states and is part of a national push for reforms in educator evaluations. Although some observers feel passing the bill could help Colorado’s bid for round two of Race to the Top, that aspect has played little role in legislative debates.

Under amendments added by Senate Education, the system wouldn’t fully go into effect until 2014-15, after a lengthy process of development by the educator effectiveness council, issuance of rules by the State Board of Education, legislative review and two years of development and testing.

(The council was created by a governor’s executive order in January and assigned to develop definitions of teacher and principal effectiveness, study other issues of educator effectiveness and make recommendations to the legislature. SB 10-191 basically retains that role for the council but adds specific policy guidelines for evaluation and tenure and creates larger roles for the state board and the legislature. The council has met twice and already is working on effectiveness definitions.)

The bill would require annual teacher and principal evaluations (more frequently than generally is done now) and tying 50 percent of the evaluations to student academic growth. The state Department of Education would assist school districts in developing a variety of student assessments in addition the annual statewide CSAP tests. (The CSAPS, scheduled to be replaced in a few years, don’t cover all grades or all subjects, requiring additional kinds of tests if all teachers are to be evaluated based partly on student growth.)

The bill also would require that tenure be earned after three consecutive years of effectiveness as determined by evaluations. Tenured teachers could be returned to probation if they didn’t have good evaluations for two years.

The bill also would require the mutual consent for placement of teachers in specific schools and establishes procedures for handling teachers who aren’t placed. It also specifies that evaluations can be considered when layoffs are made, in addition to seniority.

A Senate Ed amendment would create an appeal right for non-probationary teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluations, although the bill’s sponsors intend that detailed appeal procedures would be left up to district-union contract negotiations. (Appeal rights were the subject of several unsuccessful amendments Thursday.)

The bill also includes external factors that could be considered in evaluations, such as student mobility, the percentage of at-risk students in a school and numbers of special education students. Also defeated Thursday was an amendment that would have made “lack of parental involvement” one of those mitigating evaluation factors.

Once state standards for evaluation are in place, local school districts would be required to “meet or exceed” those standards in their evaluation systems.

The bill estimates about $240,000 in administrative costs for each of the next two years, to be funded by “gifts, grants and donations.”

While the bill has broad support among education reform groups, the state Board of Education, Commissioner Dwight Jones and Gov. Bill Ritter, the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, is strongly opposed.

Protestors from the Denver Classroom Teachers Association showed their opposition to SB 10-191 on the corner of Lincoln and Colfax April 30, 2010.

CEA has expressed a strong preference for a different process for changing the current system. Once definitions of effectiveness are created, then a new evaluation system should be set up and tested. Only after that, the CEA believes, should the decision be made about how to use the evaluation system in probation, school placement and layoff decisions.

The union also has raised concerns about the potential costs of effective and fair new evaluation systems, both for the state and for school districts.

CEA has kept its lines of communication open, however, and was behind some of the unsuccessful amendments proposed on the Senate floor Thursday.

The Denver Classroom Teachers Association, a CEA affiliate, was planning street-corner demonstrations against the bill in central Denver Friday and Saturday.

As with several other key education proposals, legislators are racing the clock with SB 10-191, because they must adjourn no later than May 12.

Members of the Senate Education Committee worked their way through amendments to SB 10-191 on April 23, 2010.

Senate Bill 10-191, the controversial educator evaluation and tenure bill, was passed 7-1 Friday afternoon by the Senate Education Committee, the first key hurdle for what has become the top education issue of the 2010 legislative session.

The bill passed after the committee approved a lengthy and complex series of amendments, some of which significantly expand the timeline for implementation beyond what was proposed in the bill’s original language.

Under the amendments, the system wouldn’t fully go into effect until 2014-15, after a lengthy process of development by the Governor’s Educator Effectiveness Council, issuance of rules by the State Board of Education, legislative review and two years of development and testing.

The measure goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday afternoon and then to the Senate floor later in the week. If passed there, it of course will have to go through the whole committee-and-floor process in the House, where it’s expected to receive an even more skeptical view. The 2010 session has less than two weeks’ worth of working days left before it must adjourn.

Voting yes on the bill were committee chair Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins; the prime sponsors, Sens. Mike Johnston, D-Denver, and Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, and the other two committee Republicans, Keith King of Colorado Springs and Mark Scheffel of Parker. Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, a driving force behind some of the amendments, was a yes. Also in support – for the moment – was Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver.

Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Wetminster (file photo)

The lone no vote was Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, a former teacher and member of the State Board of Education. In emotional remarks as the hearing closed, Hudak said, “I think it is greatly improved from where it started, [but] I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill because it’s funded by hopes … it’s a huge unfunded mandate.”

Through the two sessions of witness testimony Wednesday and Thursday, Hudak made it clear through her questions that she fears the bill is too focused on removing teachers from their jobs. “I find that offensive, as a former teacher,” she said Friday.

“The result of this bill is that people won’t want to be teachers out of fear,” she concluded.

Most of the amendments approved Friday were developed by Johnston, Bacon, Heath and Spence. Hudak proposed several of her own, most of which were rejected.

Bacon, a retired teacher and former school board member, gently took a different tack. “I see a great amount in this of all those helps” that teachers need to improve.

Steadman, a former lobbyist who used to represent human services agencies and school boards, said, “I’ve been going back and forth about which side to come down on,” saying he has a bit more confidence in the bill with its amendments than he did in its initial form.

“I think the full Senate should have a debate on this bill. … For today I’m going to let it go forward … with hesitancy.”

Other members were more positive.

• Heath – “This is historic, this is monumental.”
• King – The bill is “one of the most significant pieces of legislation I’ve seen.”
• Scheffel – “I think you’re hitting a nice balance here.”

Johnston said, “This past week has made me really proud to be a lawmaker.”

Spence, a veteran of both the House and the Senate as well as the Cherry Creek school board, took a realistic view.

“It’s just the first step in the journey through the Senate and the House … it could be a very long journey.”

The measure, sponsored by a bipartisan team of senators and representatives, would create new teacher and principal evaluation systems (tying significant portions of the evaluations to student achievement growth), require consecutive positive evaluations for a teacher to move off probation and require teachers with consecutive weak evaluations to be returned to probation.

The bill is vocally opposed by the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, which objects to the timelines in the bill, fears it would roll back due process rights for teachers and is concerned about how evaluations might be used.

Members of the Colorado Education Association rallied in a steady rain on April 23, 2010, to oppose SB 10-191.

Huddled under umbrellas, a few hundred CEA members rallied on the Capitol’s west steps Friday morning, listening to speakers loudly denounce the bill and repeatly proclaim that teachers are the ones who know best what students need.

Those attending the rally were urged to contact legislators, school board members and parents to spread the word about CEA opposition.

SB 10-191 is backed by a coalition of education, reform and civic groups, plus the State Board of Education and education Commissioner Dwight Jones. Gov. Bill Ritter and his three predecessors have endorsed the bill.

Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver

Johnston, a former Mapleton district principal and a legislative freshman, has been the driving force behind the bill, having started working on it before the 2010 session started.

Key provisions of the bill include annual teacher and principal evaluations and tying 50 percent of the evaluations to student growth.

The bill also would require that tenure be earned after three consecutive years of effectiveness as determined by evaluations. Tenured teachers could be returned to probation if they don’t have good evaluations for two years. The bill also would require the mutual consent for placement of teachers in specific schools and establishes procedures for handling teachers who aren’t placed. It also specifies that evaluations can be considered when layoffs are made, in addition to seniority.

The committee Friday did pass an amendment that would create an appeal right for unsatisfactory evaluations of non-probationary teachers.

Once state standards for evaluation are in place, local school districts would be required to “meet or exceed” those standards in their evaluation systems.

One controversial issue not addressed in any of Friday’s amendments was the question of mutual principal-teacher consent for hiring. Bacon told the committee he wants that issue dealt with, perhaps during Senate floor amendments, particularly to deal with the potential problems of that policy in small districts.

CEA has expressed a strong preference for a differently sequenced change in the current system. Once definitions of effectiveness are created, then a new evaluation system should be set up and tested. Only after that, the CEA believes, should the decision be made about how to use the evaluation system in probation, school placement and layoff decisions.

In contrast to the packed houses for the Wednesday and Thursday committee meetings at which testimony was taken, Friday’s meeting in the Capitol’s ornate Old Supreme Court Chamber was attended only by lobbyists, interest group representatives, bureaucrats and a few stray reporters.

• Draft copy of amendments proposed and approved or rejected (PDF)

• Fiscal note on the bill’s initial costs

Previous coverage

• Superintendents, others back the bill, April 22
• CEA concerns become clear in testimony, April 21
• Archive of stories on educator effectiveness

Superintendents Tom Boasberg, John Barry, Mike Miles and Charlotte Ciancio lined up April 22, 2010, to support the proposed educator effectiveness bill.

Peña spoke passionately about the need for the bill and for education reform and easily parried questions from Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, who emerged as the most skeptical and persistent committee member Thursday.

“There are some who want us to go slow,” said Peña, who heads the A+ Denver citizens’ group advising Denver Public Schools. ”I understand compromise. I understand we have to be flexible.” But, he said, proposed amendments that would extend the bill’s timeline “should give some comfort to teachers and principals.

“Let us not wait another 10 years to be bold,” he said. “Let us seize this historic opportunity.”

The meeting, which started at 1:30 p.m. and ran well past 6 p.m., ended two sessions of testimony on the high-profile bill, which would substantially change the state’s rules for evaluating teachers and principals and for moving teachers in and out of probation. Read background.

The Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, has mounted a full court press in opposition to the bill. CEA witnesses testified during the committee’s first meeting Wednesday and at the beginning of Thursday’s session. See this story for details on the Wednesday meeting.

The CEA is organizing a rally at 9:30 a.m. Friday on the Capitol’s west steps, promising about 600 teachers will show up. About 60 presidents of CEA local associations plan to lobby legislators.

At Thursday’s hearing, Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, the CEA’s parent organization, gave an articulate critique of the bill.

“The status quo for too many of our students in unacceptable,” he said. “I hope another thing we can agree on is that if you really want to transform a school … it requires collaboration. … You must have a good evaluation system and a professional development system.”

The supporting side had its own national witness, Tim Daly of the New Teacher Project, who vigorously supported the measure.

He argued that the bill actually “would give teachers far more protection than they have today.”

And a different union leader, Brenda Smith, president of the American Federation of Teachers’ Colorado unit, testified in qualified support of the bill Thursday. “We are looking forward to improving the language … for the best possible results,” she said.

Four superintendents who have tried various reform experiments in their districts also put their weight behind the measure.

Charlotte Ciancio of Mapleton led off the testimony and noted that all other metro-area superintendents back the bill.

Mike Miles of Harrison and Tom Boasberg of Denver talked about teacher quality reforms in their districts.

John Barry of Aurora was perhaps the most forceful, saying, “Evaluations and tenure change must happen together. … We need an environment of continuous improvement … based on evaluations every year.”

Other civic heavyweights backing the bill were Dan Ritchie, former chancellor of the University of Denver; George Sparks, head of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science; Colorado Children’s Campaign President Chris Watney; and Kelly Brough, CEO of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.

Groups such as Padres Unidos, the Urban League and the black and Hispanic chambers of commerce also support SB 10-191.

It was obvious that both the CEA and supporters carefully selected and prepared their witnesses. Almost all read from prepared statements, and both sides had marshaled teachers, principals and other representative figures to speak.

Some CEA witnesses told emotional stories about how they had lost jobs or struggled against unfair evaluations.

During Thursday’s hearing, Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver and the prime mover behind SB 10-191, roamed around the Old Supreme Court Chamber, looking for witnesses and checking the list he carried in his hand.

The sharpest moment of the hearing came when Hudak challenged Peña, saying, “If I read between the lines, it sounds like you’re saying the reason we’re losing those [at-risk] students is because the teachers are bad.”

Pena, whose rhetorical skills have been honed by years as civil rights lawyer, legislator, mayor and federal cabinet secretary, replied, “I said the exact opposite, with all due respect.”

With several witnesses, Hudak raised the question of how teachers can be evaluated on the basis of tests that students may not take seriously. She repeatedly used the analogy of a dental hygienist whose patents don’t take care of their teeth.

It got to the point that some witnesses started to pre-empt Hudak by using their own dental analogies.

Senate Ed, which normally meets on Wednesdays and Thursdays, will hold an extra meeting at 1:30 p.m. Friday to consider a lengthy list of proposed amendments and to vote on the bill.

The clock is ticking for SB 10-191 and several other pieces of key education legislation. Starting Friday, lawmakers have only 14 working days left before they must adjourn. If passed by the committee, the bill has to go through two rounds on Senate floor consideration before it can go to the House, where the whole process will have to be repeated starting in the House Education Committee.

Headquarters of Colorado Education Association in Denver

Members of the Senate Education Committee kept raising that question in different forms Wednesday as the panel opened two days of hearings on Senate Bill 10-191, the proposed teacher evaluation and tenure legislation.

The 40,000-member CEA was first in line to oppose the bill after it was introduced last week, saying the just-started work of the Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness should be allowed to proceed without change by SB 10-191.

An extensive set of amendments has been prepared for the bill, changes that were discussed a bit on Wednesday and that Senate Ed is to vote on Thursday. Those amendments seem to have diminished potential opposition by some committee members and have raised interest in how CEA would react.

Bev Ingle, CEA president, and executive director Tony Salazar made it clear that the proposed amendments haven’t changed the union’s mind.

“We object to reform that is being done to teachers rather than with teachers” Salazar said, calling the bill “one more example of untested top-down policy.”

“We need to work as partners, not have things done to us,” Ingle said.

Ingle and Salazar were among several CEA officials who testified Wednesday, and the main points of concern emerged in all that testimony.

Timetable: The CEA believes definitions of teacher and principal effectiveness have to be developed before taking other steps, like changing the system of education evaluations and deciding how evaluation results can be used in discipline, assignments, salaries and termination.

“The real issue is building a system in the right way. It’s about not determining outcomes before the system is built,” Salazar said.

Some committee members had some difficulty with that view. “I don’t see anything here that interferes with that process” of doing effectiveness definitions first, said Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder. “Is that not enough time?” (One of the key proposed amendments would substantially lengthen the implementation timeline, compared to what was proposed in the original bill.)

Due process: Prime sponsor Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver, has maintained that the bill wouldn’t change existing due process rights for teachers. (Probationary teachers in their first three years of work can be dismissed without cause. Non-probationary teachers have the right to impartial arbitration in dismissal cases.)

But union lobbyist Julie Whitacre and CEA general counsel Martha Houser raised due-process concerns about provisions of the bill that would allow non-probationary teachers to be put back on probation if they had unsatisfactory evaluations, require mutual principal-teacher consent for placement in a school and allow administrators to consider evaluations when deciding on layoffs.

House said returning non-probationary teachers to probation would eliminate their due process rights, and that mutual consent would in effect allow principals to remove even teachers with a strong evaluation record.

Cost: The CEA witnesses repeatedly raised concerns about the uncalculated and unfunded potential costs of a new evaluation system. (One proposed amendment would fund initial costs from “gifts, grants and donations.”)

The bill “creates unfunded mandates for school districts,” Salazar said. “The funding issue … that’s a major issue we can’t brush aside.”

Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, Colorado Education Association President Bev ngle (center) and CEA executive director Tony Salazar listen to committee discussion of Senate Bill 10-191 on April 21, 2010.

Whitacre suggested it would cost “a minimum of over $70 million” in costs for evaluations and professional development of evaluators. The bill calls for annual evaluations. Current practice generally evaluates teachers every three years.

Colorado has a recent history of passing education reforms without the budgets to pay for them. Several small programs have been legislated with “gifts, grants and donations.” The major example is the 2008 Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, which calls for a multi-year overhaul of content standards, tests, high school graduation requirements, college admissions requirements and more. A recent estimate put the price tag for just the first phase of that at more than $170 million. Further studies are scheduled.

Lynn Huizing, president of the Colorado PTA, testified Wednesday that her group opposes the bill because “we are concerned this bill sets forth a system without adequate funding.”

Paula Stephenson of the Colorado Rural Schools Caucus said that group is “in favor of the broad concepts of the bill” but is worried about “a huge administrative burden. … We don’t know if this is the time to ram legislation through for the sake of change.”

Committee chair Sen. Bob Bacon of Fort Collins has set aside four hours for testimony on the bill. The committee will resume at 1 p.m. Thursday, take another hour of opposition testimony, two hours of supporter testimony and then decide on amendments and vote on the bill. Bacon hopes to finish all that by 5 p.m.

Thursday’s testimony will allow the coalition of education reform, civic and business groups backing the bill to make their case. To bolster their case, the advocacy group Stand for Children commissioned a poll of Coloradans about school spending, education issues and teacher effectiveness.

In opening remarks Wednesday, co-prime sponsor Sen Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, cited the poll as showing public support for changes such as those proposed by SB 10-191. (See the at the end of this article for a summary of poll results.)

The bill got a boost Wednesday from Gov. Bill Ritter and his three predecessors, Republican Bill Owens and Democrats Roy Romer and Dick Lamm. In a column distributed for newspaper publication, the four wrote they “enthusiastically support” SB 10-191 and “passionately urge” the legislature to pass it. (Text of column via Denver Business Journal. PDF)

Meanwhile …

While the committee was mulling the future of the Educator Effectiveness Council, that very body was meeting across East Colfax Avenue (at CEA headquarters) and actually discussing how to define teacher and principal effectiveness.

During its second meeting, the panel did some organizational tasks, received a briefing on research about effectiveness and then broke into small groups to brainstorm what effectiveness might look like (previous story with background on the council).

Do your homework

• Bill text as introduced
• Copy of bill annotated with proposed amendments
• Summary of proposed amendments
• Background story on the bill
• Archive of stories on educator effectiveness
• Presentation about Stand for Children poll of public attitudes on schools and teachers (PDF)

The amendments appear to give a big boost to the chances for passage of Senate Bill 10-191 by the Senate Education Committee, which begins deliberations Wednesday morning.

The introduced version of the measure, sponsored by a bipartisan team of senators and representatives, would create new teacher and principal evaluation systems (tying significant portions of the evaluation to student achievement growth), require consecutive positive evaluations for a teacher to move off probation and require teachers with weak evaluations to be returned to probation.

The original bill has been vocally opposed by the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, which objects to the timelines in the bill and is concerned about how evaluations are used. SB 10-191 is backed by a coalition of education reform and civic groups, plus the State Board of Education and education Commissioner Dwight Jones.

Two other mainline groups, the Colorado Association of School Boards and the Colorado Association of School Executives, support the concepts behind the bill but want amendments.

Based on a summary provided to Education News Colorado Tuesday, here are the major timetable changes proposed in the amendments:

• March 1, 2011 – Council on Educator Effectiveness makes recommendation to State Board of Education. (Original proposed deadline is this December.)
• Sept. 1, 2011 – State board approves regulations for new system. (Original deadline is March 1, 2011.)
• Feb. 15, 2012 – Legislature votes on SBE rules. (Original bill silent on this point.)
• 2012-13 – Beta test of new evaluation system. (Original bill silent.)
• 2013-14 – Implementation of using evaluation system in granting tenure to probationary teachers. (Original bill silent.)
• 2014-15 – Implementation of using evaluation system for returning tenured teachers to probation. (Original bill silent.)

Other proposed amendments would:

• Clarify that 50 percent of a principal’s evaluation would be tied to student growth.
• Remove from the list of council duties a study of how to more equitably distribute teachers to high-needs schools.
• Specify that the effort is to be funded by “gifts, grants and donations.”
• Require the Department of Education to identify resources that school districts could use for evaluation systems.

Debate on the bill opens formally after the Senate’s daily floor session concludes Wednesday morning. Consideration of the bill will continue starting at 1:30 p.m. Thursday. Both sessions are in the Capitol’s Old Supreme Court Chamber.

Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins

Chair Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, has said he’ll take two hours of testimony from opponents and two from supporters. The plan is to hear opposition testimony Wednesday and do supporter testimony, amendments and probably a vote on Thursday.

Co-prime sponsor Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, said Tuesday she had some concerns about the longer timetable but that it probably was unavoidable.

Bacon, Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, and Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver and the other Senate prime sponsor, have been working on amendment language.

The CEA objected strongly to changing the timelines contained in Gov. Bill Ritter’s January executive order creating the council. Under those, the council has until December to write the effectiveness definitions but doesn’t have to make detailed further recommendations until Sept. 30, 2011. The executive order doesn’t include a specific approval role for the state board, effectively putting the issue before the 2012 legislative session. (Executive orders, of course, don’t carry the impact of law, and Ritter will leave office in January.)

As introduced, SB 10-191 also is out of synch with deadlines contained in the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, the reform plan passed by the 2008 legislature.

Both the executive order and the bill require that at least 50 percent of teacher evaluations be tied to student growth. But, CAP4K calls for a change in the state testing system that measures such growth. CAP4K requires the state board to adopt a new testing system by this December, with the new system to go into effect in 2012. However, a bill just passed by the House, House Bill 10-1013, would extend those deadlines.

Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Wetminster

Of the eight members on Senate Education, one Democrat and three Republicans are cosponsors. A yes vote from one other Democrat, Bacon, Heath, Evie Hudak of Westminster or Pat Steadman of Denver, is needed to move the bill to the floor.

Heath said Tuesday he’ll support the bill if the right amendments are added. Hudak said she still has lots of concerns about the bill but feels some measure needs to be passed so she will watch the amendments closely.

CEA lobbyist Karen Wick said Tuesday she hadn’t seen all the possible amendments and that union members remain highly concerned about the bill. (Wick was interviewed before EdNews saw the amendment summary.)

She said CEA wants a clearly sequenced change in the current system. Once definitions of effectiveness are created, then a new evaluation system should be set up and tested. Only after that, Wick said, should the decision be made about how to use the evaluation system in probation, school placement and layoff decisions. (The proposed amendments would seem to move in that direction.)

Key provisions of the bill include annual teacher and principal evaluations.

The original bill also would require that tenure be earned after three consecutive years of effectiveness as determined by evaluations. Tenured teachers could be returned to probation if they don’t have good evaluations for two years. The bill also would require the mutual consent for placement of teachers in specific schools and establishes procedures for handling teachers who aren’t placed. It also specifies that evaluations can be considered when layoffs are made, in addition to seniority.

Once state standards for evaluation are in place, local school districts would be required to “meet or exceed” those standards in their evaluation systems.

Jane Urschel, chief legislative liaison for CASB, said her group is concerned about creation of a “one-size-fits-all” evaluation system that might be difficult for small districts to implement. She said Tuesday she’s working on possible amendments that would give small districts more choice in evaluation methods.

Do your homework

• Bill text as introduced
• Summary of proposed amendments
• Background story on the bill
• Archive of stories on educator effectiveness

For the record

Another charter bill introduced

A measure proposing requirements for charter school review and appeals, House Bill 10-1419, was introduced Tuesday.

It would set new provisions for school board handling of charter school applications and for State Board of Education consideration of charter appeals. The bill is meant to coordinate with another recently introduced charter measure, House Bill 10-1412.

Rep. Karen Middleton, D-Aurora, and Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, are the prime sponsors. House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, also is on the bill. He’s the prime sponsor of HB 10-1412. All the sponsors are Democrats.

Also Tuesday, the Senate gave preliminary approval to Senate Bill 10-054, which would require minimal education services be provided to juveniles held in adult jails, and to Senate Bill 10-039, which would set up a modest job-retraining scholarship program using money taken from an existing scholarship program.

The Senate gave final approval to House Bill 10-1147, the bicycle safety bill that no longer contains a helmet requirement.

Use the Education Bill Tracker for links to bill texts and status information.