Not so fast
In the last two weeks since Colorado’s Race to the Top application didn’t pass muster at the U.S. Department of Education, teachers have caught hell. The Denver Post columnists have blasted both teachers and our Association for letting the state down because we won’t give up due process to make our state’s application better. State Education Commissioner Dwight Jones took aim at teachers in today’s Denver Post, scapegoating teachers for Colorado’s application for federal funds finishing near the bottom of the 16 Phase 1 finalist states – but saying he’s let us down by not doing evaluations properly.
Today State Sen. Michael Johnston (D-Denver) will go a step farther by introducing a bill to skirt Governor Ritter’s new Educator Effectiveness Council and pass legislation to make sweeping changes in both teacher evaluation and due process.
NOT SO FAST. You will not throw teachers under the bus.
Whether Colorado won or not in Phase 1 is not the fault of CEA or of its 40,000 members. Teaching is not about how many teachers are fired at the end of a school year. It’s a complex task and it’s not easily evaluated. Most everyone knows this, though it’s currently not fashionable to say so publicly.
We don’t agree with the Post or the Commissioner and we will do everything we can to kill Sen. Johnston’s bill. Teachers want a fair, credible evaluation system, not the one we have today. That’s why we are committed to working through the Governor’s Council to get a new system.
Sen. Johnston is wrong. His bill goes too far and costs too much. It mandates that districts create new teacher and principal evaluation systems even if they already do evaluations well or recently overhauled their systems. It does this just as the Legislature is forcing districts to slash their budgets, lay off employees, raise class sizes, and freeze salaries – and on top of new content standards, turnaround schools, and the impacts of ESEA reauthorization.
And, yes, it radically weakens due process under state law. Teaching is a high-risk profession that requires professionals to be able to work in a supportive environment – without fear of reprisals or capricious decisions by principals. The bill penalizes an experienced teacher with two consecutive years of “demonstrated ineffectiveness” (based partially on student test scores), forcing the teacher back to probationary status without due process. This can happen to teachers at any time in their careers.
CEA opposes Sen. Michael Johnston’s teacher evaluation and due process bill. We hope to see the bill later today so we have a bill number and can then say “NO ON ___!”
Explore posts in the same categories: Race to the Top, School Funding, Teacher Dismissal, Teacher Effectiveness, UncategorizedTags: CEA, Colorado Education Association, public education budget cuts, teacher due process, Teacher Effectiveness, teacher evaluation, teacher firings
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
April 22, 2010 at 9:54 am
My following thoughts are rooted in this vantage point as highlighted below:
1) I have parented 2 individuals as they advanced through a public school system during the
evolution of NCLB and its accompanying discussions.
2) I have witnessed and contemplated the birth, implementation and effect of NCLB during this same period
3) During this period, my parenting and my children’s education have dealt with my own divorce.
4) Last but not least, my thoughts about NCLB and this nation’s resulting entanglement with its own educating self have been further developed by my Licensure and Masters Degree in Education earned in Ohio (with a Specialty in Reading for K-12 and certified as well for preK-3).
5) Throughout this period, I have taught children immersed in poverty and in disrupted and disruptive households in both classrooms as well as in individualized sessions and children
more fortunate.
From this vantage point, I conclude, believe, and submit the following for heavy and, perhaps, pivotal consideration. Keep in mind that legislative minds continue to ponder the increasingly inordinate focus on staking teachers’ salaries and employment directly, swiftly, and inordinately on students’ outcomes measured by high-stake standardized tests as a means to an end. Yet, in the end, there is still no fair and useful definition of “effective teaching” and, more importantly, there is no sensible goal(s) for the sake of our students. So,
Consideration A
- Let’s proficiently practice the analytical and reflective thinking as we have expected our graduates of the NCLB era to do so.
Consideration B
- Let’s realize from the following that it makes no sense and would be counterproductive to tie teachers’ salaries and employment to the student’s academic outcome for the additional following reasons:
1) The resulting requirements for “qualification” that have been implemented over the past 10 years are a milestone of achievement and of excellence alone. Let’s be proud and confident in becoming proficient at employing them.
2) Let’s realize therefore that, now, is the time to TRUST this profession because of those requirements for qualification and because of this profession’s long practice of reliably and expertly studying methods of teaching from which we altogether have benefitted for at least forty years as we shall continue to do because of the promulgation of effective methods uncovered through the research and because of the established expectation of qualification.
3) Let’s realize that, like other professions, no more improvement will be gained by tying a professional’s (teacher’s) salary and employment to a student’s or to the students’ outcome as if it were only the teacher who was the sole determinant of that student’s learning outcome. The desired improvement in outcome can only rise from this point in time if the student and his/her circles of supporters (within the circle of friends, within the circle of family members, within the circle of community supporters) now commit their time and energy to embracing the teacher’s current role to the point of prioritizing it within their own schedules so that the following would happen as a routine:
- each student’s behavior and speech toward the teacher is respectful and
dutiful as a rule and is reviewed, supported, and enforced at home
- each student realizes that it is cool to be a student
- each student participates in class undisruptively as expected by family members and enforced by the same so that he/she contributes to the lesson’s efficient delivery and understanding and application
- each student completes his or her work in class and homework on time with support or interest at home
– each student is nourished 3x a day
- each student sleeps restoratively each night
4) Let’s realize that this profession is indeed an honorable profession and treat it as such especially since it has always required and succeeded with (in-house and out-house) knowledge, practice, problem-solving, evaluative practices, adaptation, creativity, and, most of all, with an environment of trust and acceptance and involvement of each and every individual within the school family as much as possible within the time constraints of any one day. Those hallmarks and keys to success are especially in place now as “in-house fixtures”.
5) Now, let’s realize that the teachers are and have always been one side of the equation. Their side of it (their efforts and plans and qualifications) has been mastered and rewarded barely adequately for too long especially after ten years of NCLB and after all the years of reviewing our educational system instigated by former President Reagan.
6) Let’s realize and act accordingly that the other side of the educating equation and across from this giver is the receiver, the student and accompanying family. It’s one thing to teach and to know; it’s another thing to receive and learn. No matter how much the teaching side is inspired and skilled while conducting 20 or more individuals to compose themselves as one student body, the outcome is contingent on any given day on any one student’s willingness and willpower to be a student.
7) So, let’s attend to the student side of the equation. Let’s realize that it’s imperative that we, as a school family, focus on and emphasize and expect our own student(s) and our own parenting selves to dedicate and prioritize our own practices as recipients of teachers’ lessons and assignments. Let’s ask ourselves
“What practices and messages are being practiced at home or off campus within our family?”
“ Do those messages communicate and inculcate respect and honor for the teacher and for the work? “
“Does schoolwork happen asap after school hours and often with interest from a supporting adult? “
“Is the student’s best effort enforced outside of school no matter the age of the student?”
“ Are we convincing our own students to respect school and all its teachers and administrators and demonstrating it?”
“Are our nation’s leaders trusting, prioritizing, and incorporating pedagogical advice borne of historical and empirically tested practices?”
8) Let’s realize that paying a teacher for performance is inappropriate and ineffective for yet this other reason and fact: this profession is distinguishable from others (like the legal profession or the accounting profession, the medical profession, the plumbing and electrical profession, the architectural profession, for example) to the point where it doesn’t make sense to hinge teaching positions and pay on student outcome.
Specifically, student outcome is dependent not just on or even predominantly on the teacher’s work. Student outcome results tremendously from his or her own effort after or during the teacher’s work. The student outcome – especially after elementary years- hinges on intrinsic motivation in short.
In elaborating, consider that, whereas, for example, the professional landscaper’s outcome is immediate and directly related to his/her own work and plan. The outcome is affected externally from just two variables: the weather and the property owner’s commitment to caring for the supplied product. His work is
rewarded all the same and the value of it is determined and honored as a matter of profession and of the economy before the outcome occurs regardless of the role of the weather or of the property owner. On the other hand, the teacher’s outcome is not immediate but takes time to produce since learning – the outcome- is a function of practice and memory that must be involved outside of school. The teacher’s outcome is variable as well from the beginning of class each and every day because the receiver of the teacher’s work, the student, may be inattentive for many reasons (fatigue, malnourishment, boredom, lack of self-discipline, rebelliousness/mischief, distraction from others) regardless of the teacher’s effort and skill at engaging. Yet, the teacher is a professional who is trained, educated, prepared, skilled, and committed. Those attributes face diminishing return is the student’s wherewithal
for learning and participating is hampered by his/her own lifestyle or family environment.
The lawyer’s salary is tied to his or her prowess at discovery, organization, polemics, and understanding of the law and of judicial proceedings and not to the outcome. The outcome can be altered at the end by the judge or jury. Yet, he/she commands a price and is paid regardless of the outcome because of the value of the profession and of the dictates of the economy. Does not the currently qualified teacher merit the same regard and respect and trust?
The doctor or nurse or nurse practitioner or, assistant works toward achieving their outcome through training, practicing, diagnosing, and choosing courses of action
for the sake of his/her recipient. They get paid a set fee regardless of the outcome which varies because of the patient’s allegiance to a prescribed regimen. Does not the currently qualified teacher merit the same regard and respect and trust?
In summary, these other professionals’ employment and salaries, generally speaking, are not tied stringently to the receiver’s outcome even though their receivers’ well-being is dependent on their work. Furthermore, the outcome of these professionals’ work can be rendered ineffective by their recipient’s level of collaboration. The teacher’s effort is similarly affected. Yet, these other professionals’ salaries are not directly and only tied to the outcomes of their own efforts; nor, are their employments nullified swiftly and directly because of these outcomes affected by their own recipients’ actions. Their salaries are predetermined based on the value of their service to the receiver’s lives and on the state of the economy. Does not the currently qualified teacher merit the same regard and respect and trust?
Consideration C
Considering the analogous state of affairs of these other professions and services that are critical to another human being’s welfare, it is illogical and incongruous to tie a professional teacher’s salary and employment swiftly and directly to the outcomes achieved by the students or student who is more in charge or equally in charge of those outcomes by virtue of their own actions resulting from their own level of self-discipline, their intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, or resulting from the support given or not given at home.
Summary
At the end of this reflection and analysis of thinking, it’s clear that for academic progress to occur, the clamor for directly connecting a teacher’s salary and employment to a student’s outcome measured as a score must stop; and, the focus of intense energy must now be placed on the other side of the equation, the nonprofessional side, i.e., the student and the family for the following reasons:
The teaching profession is firmly in place as a profession that is and will remain trained and qualified. It will remain so because of NCLB.
The teaching profession is organized and oriented toward being more accountable to its recipients than other professions or as accountable.
As with other professions, the salary and employment of teachers is determined by the value that society attaches to it and that the economy can support. Yet, the teacher is just one side of the equation and of this value determination.
As with other professions, the outcome is undeniably dependent on the recipient’s actions.
More than other professions, the outcome is critically and pivotally dependent on the
recipient’s actions.
The recipient, i.e., the student and family have the capacity and must be encouraged by the
public to apply that capacity to its fullest in order to benefit from the teacher’s teaching.
So, I conclude and submit that the legislative minds should cease pondering the inordinate focus on staking teachers’ salaries and employment directly, swiftly, and inordinately on students’ outcomes measured by high-stake standardized tests as a means to an end. The returns of such energy are diminishing steeply.
Instead, it’s high time for our legislative bodies and critical minds to place tirelessly and ceaselessly the focus on the students’ and families’ responsibilities for improving the academic outcomes. At the same time, let’s be mindful of the fact that there is still no fair and useful definition of “effective teaching” and, more importantly, there is no sensible goal(s) for the sake of our students. I am sure that if the prospect of employment were to be encouraged and to be encouraging, the outcomes would improve.
April 22, 2010 at 8:01 pm
An interesting post “commenter.”
In an effort to keep the discussion as factual and civil as possible, I don’t believe it is the case that SB 191 contains any measures that would mandate “performance pay” or “merit pay.”
While these terms frequently generate a great deal of debate and many opinions on the subject, this bill just doesn’t go there.
SB 191 is centered on teacher and principal evaluation and tenure reforms. The only references to pay come in a section stating that the most effective educators would have access to “career ladders” that allow for greater compensation.
Its a stretch to call that tying salaries to test scores.
I’m happy to stand corrected if I’m wrong on this.
While the discussion of performance pay is a valuable one that we need to have in a reasoned and civil way, I don’t think hanging it on SB 191 is accurate.
Jason Glass
Eagle, CO
April 22, 2010 at 8:04 pm
For everyone’s convenience, here is a link to SB 191 as it currently stands. I assume (and hope) there will be several amendments as the discussions progress.
http://bit.ly/9DldWd
Jason Glass
Eagle, CO
April 20, 2010 at 2:07 pm
[...] On the other hand, it’s too BAD that one special interest lobbying group has decided to work so hard to stop SB 191: the Colorado Education Association (CEA). Before they even saw the official bill that seeks to hold both principals and teachers to greater account for their effectiveness in improving student learning, leaders of the state’s largest teachers union complained and vowed to do all in their power “to kill Sen. Johnston’s bill.” [...]
April 18, 2010 at 1:30 pm
An excellent point Lisa – I agree that most teachers aren’t afraid of the evaluation or the assessments, its all in the details of how these things are used.
Teacher evaluation is incredibly complex and takes a tremendous amount of thinking, work, and continuous reexamination to be valid and reliable. Most principals do see it as a nuisance and a “when I get to it” task rather than a central function of their job and an opportunity to help teachers get better.
Clearly, we’ve got lots of work to do on that front.
However, I do hope that the fear of not getting something “perfect” doesn’t paralyze us and keep us from doing anything at all. The biggest part of learning is taking risks, failing, and getting better from the experience. We’ve got to get to that kind of innovative/experimental spirit with evaluating teacher quality if we ever hope to improve these systems.
Collectively, we really know a lot about learning. Our challenge is to see if we can apply that knowledge to our own profession.
Jason Glass
Eagle, CO
April 13, 2010 at 9:25 am
[...] to nobody’s surprise, SB 191 has one powerful and determined opponent. The Colorado Education Association yesterday exclaimed: We don’t agree with the Post or the Commissioner and we will do everything we can to kill Sen. [...]
April 12, 2010 at 3:57 pm
It’s wrong to lay the blame of Colorado’s failure in the RttT application at the feet of teachers. Not only (in my opinion) was Colorado’s proposal weak on tenure and evaluation reforms, it was also relatively weak in its approach to “closing the achievement gap,” and we are all painfully aware of our deficiencies in funding.
However, this does not mean that we should not be looking at serious and intensive transformations in the areas of teacher tenure and teacher evaluation.
Hand in hand with changing (or abolishing) teacher tenure and improving teacher evaluation systems are some reductions in the job protections teachers enjoy and an increase in accountability for quality instruction.
I maintain hope that CEA will rise to the challenge of the tough conversations around tenure and evaluation and again be a collaborative partner in helping our state lead the nation in these areas.
We need to change and do better in both these areas.
Jason Glass
Eagle, CO
April 15, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I agree with the comments made by Jason Glass. There needs to be a significant element of tenure and teacher evaluation reform in Colorado’s application for it to have any hope of getting funding. I am a union member and a teacher, and I wholeheartedly disagree with CEA pulling it’s support from the state application.
Professionals in the private sector are subject to real and meaningful evaluations of job performance. A Poor evaluation will result in an individual being forced to look at how they are doing things and find ways to improve, thus increasing accountability. If an individual is unwilling or unable to do so, they are truly not meant to be in that field. If however, an individual is able to better match their style to the needs of their clients after such a review, who doesn’t benefit? I think real teacher evaluations will only serve to strengthen our profession. If we really consider ourselves “professionals” why shouldn’t we be held to the same standards of other professionals? I think the very thought that teachers are somehow above such evaluation is the reason we don’t have the respect we deserve.
April 16, 2010 at 6:40 pm
I too believe we need serious evaluation reform. My district has started this effort and has made progress. However evaluation done correctly is difficult and many of our principals simply do not want to do the hard work it entails. I don’t think teachers are afraid of FAIR and rigorous evaluations, but they don’t want rogue principals having the kind of power that SB 191 would give them.
the difference between other professions and teachers in terms of evaluation is the lack of control teachers have over their own profession and the difficulty in moving from one employer to another without loss of income.