First, Let's Fire the Teachers!

posted March 6, 2010

Imagine that you are a teacher in a high school in a high-poverty district. Many of your students don't speak English. Some don't attend school regularly because they have to earn money or babysit with their siblings while their parents are looking for work. Some come to school unprepared because they didn't do their homework.

But you are idealistic and dedicated, you work with each of the students, you do your best to teach them reading, writing, science, math, history, whatever your subject. But despite your best efforts, many of your students can't read very well (they are struggling to learn English), and many of them don't graduate. If your school eliminated all its standards, you could easily push up the graduation rate.

About 45 minutes away is another high school in a much better neighborhood. Its statistics are far better than yours. The children are almost all born in the U.S., and their parents are almost all college graduates with good jobs. Their kids don't go to school hungry, they have their own room and their own computer, and they have stellar test scores to boot. Their graduation rate is very impressive, and most of their graduates go to college.

What is to be done about the first school? President George W. Bush signed a law called "No Child Left Behind," which required constant improvement. The Obama administration wants to rename the law but they too reject any excuses for low performance and low graduation rates.

Recently, the school committee of Central Falls, Rhode Island, voted to fire all 93 members of the staff in their low-performing high school. Central Falls is the smallest and poorest city in the state, and it has only one high school. Those fired included 74 classroom teachers, plus the school psychologist, guidance counselors, reading specialists, and administrators.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan thought this was wonderful; he said the members of the school committee were "showing courage and doing the right thing for kids." The kids apparently didn't agree because many of them came to the committee meeting to defend their teachers.

President Obama thought it was wonderful that every educator at Central Falls High School was fired. At an appearance before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on March 1, the President applauded the idea of closing the school and getting rid of everyone in it. At the same meeting, President Obama acknowledged Margaret Spellings, who was President George W. Bush's Education Secretary, because she "helped to lead a lot of the improvement that's been taking place and we're building on."

Well, yes, the President is right; his own education reform plans are built right on top of the shaky foundation of President Bush's No Child Left Behind program. The fundamental principle of school reform, in the Age of Bush and Obama, is measure and punish. If students don't get high enough scores, then someone must be punished! If the graduation rate hovers around 50%, then someone must be punished. This is known as "accountability."

President Obama says that Central Falls must close because only 7% of the students are proficient in math, and the graduation rate is only 48%. Sounds bad, right?

But the President has saluted a high school in Providence, Rhode Island, called "The Met" whose scores are no different from the scores at Central Falls High School. At Central Falls, 55% of the kids are classified as "proficient readers," just like 55% at The Met. In math, only 7% of students at Central Falls are proficient in math, but at The Met--which the President lauds--only 4% are proficient in math. Ah, but The Met has one big advantage over Central Falls High Schools: Its graduation rate is 75.6%. But figure this one out: How can a high school where only 4% of the students are proficient in math and only 55% are proficient readers produce a graduation rate of 75.6%? To this distant observer, it appears that the school with lower graduation standards rates higher in President Obama's eyes.

President Obama has said on several occasions that he wants to see 5,000 low-performing schools closed. So, yes, there will be plenty of teachers and principals looking for new jobs.

The question that neither President Obama nor Secretary Duncan has answered is this: Where will they find 5,000 expert principals to take over the schools that are closed? Where will they find hundreds of thousands of superb teachers to fill the newly vacant positions? Or will everyone play musical chairs to give the illusion of reform?

As it happens, Central Falls High School had seen consistent improvement over the past two years. Only last year, the State Commissioner sent in a team to look at the school and commended its improvements. It noted that the school had been burdened by frequently changing programs and leadership. With more support from the district and the state, this improvement might have continued. Instead, the school was given a death warrant.

Will it be replaced by a better school? Who knows? Will excellent teachers flock to Central Falls to replace their fired colleagues? Or will it be staffed by inexperienced young college graduates who commit to stay at the school for two years? Will non-English-speaking students start speaking English because their teachers were fired? Will children come to school ready to learn because their teachers were fired?

It would be good if our nation's education leaders recognized that teachers are not solely responsible for student test scores. Other influences matter, including the students' effort, the family's encouragement, the effects of popular culture, and the influence of poverty. A blogger called "Mrs. Mimi" wrote the other day that we fire teachers because "we can't fire poverty." Since we can't fire poverty, we can't fire students, and we can't fire families, all that is left is to fire teachers.

This strategy of closing schools and firing the teachers is mean and punitive. And it is ultimately pointless. It solves no problem. It opens up a host of new problems. It satisfies the urge to purge. But it does nothing at all for the students.

Diane Ravitch is the author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (Basic Books).

---

Colorado’s Vision for R2T

posted 1/8/10

Race to the Top (R2T) is the federal competitive grant application process promoted by the Department of Education. States are competing for a share of 4.35 billion dollars to be used to reform public education. Below is the Colorado vision for education reform. Click on the Race to the Top link to see additional information on the Colorado plan and our R2T FAQ.

Every student in Colorado receives an education that allows and inspires them to achieve their dreams, that allows Colorado to benefit from a wealth of human talent and become a leader in the global economy, and that inspires pride and commitment in those who work in and are served by public education.

A Reform Approach
Colorado’s approach starts with Senate Bill 212 passed in 2009, nicknamed "CAP4K" for the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids. The intent of CAP4K is to align Colorado’s public education system, preschool through college, to focus on the readiness of all students at key transition points and to prepare all students to be ready by the time they exit the system for postsecondary education and/or the workforce.

A critical step is the development and implementation of a “next generation” of standards-based assessments that are more useful and relevant to students, parents and educators than CSAP is today. Beyond that step we will need to build the capacity of individuals, networks, and organizations to effectively engage in the continuous improvement of instruction and student achievement.

Colorado will invest in three key strategies across the four "assurance areas" of R2T (outlined clearly in the Revised Plan Summary).


(1) develop educators' capacity to promote and be accountable for standards-based learning;

(2) provide incentives for results, knowledge capture, and collaboration on sharing best practices; and


(3) create opportunities for innovation in educational resources and delivery.

R2T Application Requirements
Signatures of key stakeholders; progress to date in the four assurance/reform areas; education funding from FY08-FY09 and plans for funds; a state level implementation plan; the reform condition criteria of current preparedness level; reform plan criteria of future reforms; and agreement to report publicly on progress.

R2T Selection Criteria

State success factors (125 points); development and implementation of high-quality common standards and assessments (70 points); implementation of a statewide longitudinal data system to improve instruction (47 points); great teachers and leaders (138 points); plan to turn around struggling schools (50 points); and general selection criteria (55 points).

Timeline
Immediately: Signed MOU submission.
January 19: Phase I applications due (Colorado plans to apply for Phase II)
March 1: Phase I finalists notified, present plans in Washington, D.C.
April: Phase I awards announced; 90 days of scope of work (district opt out period)

 

---

Colorado Coalition for Retirement Security Supports
Modified 2/2/2 PERA Plan
Rejects PERA 2/2/2-PLUS Plan

posted December 15, 2009

In October, the PERA Board of Trustees approved a “2/2/2 PLUS” plan that the board says is the best answer to stabilizing the pension fund. The plan includes a two percent increase to employer contributions; a two percent increase to employee contributions; and a reduction of the cost-of-living (COLA) for retirees that would index it to the CPI-W index capped at two percent annually. The PERA Board also recommended several benefit reductions and changes. (details at www.copera.org)

CEA is a leader in the Colorado Coalition for Retirement Security (http://www.securepera.org) and has been active in helping this coalition of labor organizations determine whether we support the PERA Board’s proposal. After months of research and listening to employees and retirees, THE COALITION HAS DECIDED TO SUPPORT A MODIFIED 2/2/2 PLAN.

1. The coalition supports the two percent contribution increases for both employers and employees, providing that the double bump in 2013     for School Division employers (school districts) can be worked out (there is already a scheduled increase that year for school districts).
2. But we believe the better answer to the COLA for retirees is to reduce it from the current 3.5 percent to two percent and not link it to the CPI-W index.
3. In addition, we believe the PERA funding level should be between 90 and 100 percent, not 90-110 percent as the PERA Board proposes, and we believe PERA should be required to report to the Legislature every five years on the fund’s status, as well as how the COLA compares to inflation and the CPI-W index. Such a review will help inform future decisions about PERA funding and ensure that we do not “over-correct” the problem and over-burden retirees, employees, and employers more than absolutely necessary.

The coalition also rejects the benefit reductions and changes that are the “PLUS” part of the PERA Board’s plan. These changes are unnecessary; they do not affect the funding level enough to be essential.

Coalition members are currently working with legislative leaders and PERA to find a proposal everyone can support before the Legislature opens its 2010 session January 13. At this time, however, we do not support PERA’s 2/2/2 PLUS portions of the PERA Board proposal.

This situation is very fluid and changes may occur from day to day. We encourage you to check back frequently, but we will also send an email reminder as updates become available.

 

---

Denver Area Superintendents Attack Teacher Due Process

posted November 23, 2009

The Denver Area School Superintendent’s Council (DASSC) delivered the following letter to Lt. Governor O’Brien and Commissioner Dwight Jones attacking teacher due process and employment status. We have posted the letter in it’s entirety. AEA is very interested in your opinions about teacher due process, dismissal and employment provisions. Once you have read the letter, we encourage you to go to this AEA survey and tell us what you think.

 

---

 

October 23, 2009

Dear Lieutenant Governor O’Brien and Commissioner Jones,

The Denver Area School Superintendents’ Council (DASSC) applauds the efforts in Colorado to develop a proposal for “Race to the Top” funding. We know that many individuals have devoted long hours to determine the most effective strategies for accelerating the achievement of Colorado students. The members of DASSC, the superintendents of the 23 Front Range school districts, are taking this opportunity to clearly state our opinion that the critical element in school reform and in accelerating student achievement is Teacher Effectiveness. This opinion is based on research, literature, and experience. Consequently, we are advocating for the following changes in statute and in practice as part of the application for “Race to the Top” and as part of Colorado’s future policy efforts in school reform.

Changes in the Probationary and Continuing Contract Status of Teachers

• Currently Colorado statute requires that teachers are granted continuing contract status on the first day of their fourth year of teaching. Once a teacher has continuing contract status, they are protected by the Teacher Dismissal Act. We would advocate a change in this statute so that teachers are not automatically granted continuing contract status after three years. The superintendents in DASSC have discussed two options for changing the automatic granting of a continuing contract. We would look forward to wider discussion of these options with other superintendents and with policy makers in Colorado.
  
  
  • The first option is that districts would have discretion to grant continuing status at any time after the end of a teacher’s third year and before the end of a teacher’s seventh year. We would advocate that the current statutory provision for non-renewal be maintained. That provision provides for the standard that a probationary teacher may be non-renewed for “any reason deemed sufficient by the superintendent.”
  
  
  • The second option is to lengthen the period of time before continuing contracts are granted to five years for all teachers in all school districts. Again, we would advocate that the current statutory provision for non-renewal be maintained. That provision provides for the standard that a probationary teacher may be non-renewed for “any reason deemed sufficient by the superintendent.”


• Another provision we would suggest changing is that once teachers have non-probationary status, their status is subject to renewal every five years. That renewal would clearly symbolize the need for continuous learning and continued high quality performance for educators.

Changes in the Teacher Dismissal Act

• All superintendents in DASSC want teachers protected from arbitrary decisions and capricious behavior on the part of any school administrator. However, the Teacher Dismissal Act has created an unworkable, complex, drawn out process for dismissal of any licensed teacher whose performance is not satisfactory. We would advocate that the Teacher Dismissal Act be reviewed and revised so that the following could be accomplished.
  
  
  • While maintaining protection, the protracted process should be simplified and shortened. Teachers should not have 100 days of pay while the case is moving forward from the grievance process through a hearing in front of an administrative law judge unless the teacher wins the hearing in question and is reinstated. Otherwise, we would advocate that paying teachers ends when the district moves for dismissal.
  
  
  • Remediation and dismissal statutes should align with districts’ teacher evaluation systems. To be successful and drive student achievement, districts must be able to reward talented educators and replace those who are ineffective. With the goal of a fair and efficient dismissal process, the statute should streamline provisions on remediation. Rather than a lengthy remediation process the statute should require that before teachers are recommended for dismissal, they have received a notice of deficiencies and a reasonable time within which to improve to the point of consistent satisfactory performance. The required due process should center on the notification and the fairness of the treatment received prior to dismissal, rather than around the “remediation process” currently required before the recommendation for dismissal. Streamlining the process would eliminate a separate “remediation process” while protecting the rights of teachers to notice of deficiencies and an adequate opportunity to improve. Through notification and focus on improvement, the process can become a more meaningful performance improvement process rather than a procedural step towards dismissal.
  
  
  • The burden of proof at a contested dismissal hearing for performance based issues should be shifted from the school district to the individual teacher. The teacher should have to prove arbitrary or capricious behavior on behalf of the school district. The use of the arbitrary and capricious standard should recognize that school administrators should have considerable discretion and judgment about whether a teacher is performing his or her job in a satisfactory manner. We also believe that the losing party should pay hearing related expenses.


• Another aspect of the Teacher Dismissal Act that we would advocate be changed is that when teachers lose their position at a particular school, they are not guaranteed another teaching position in the district. Districts should have no obligation to force place those teachers in other schools. Rather, teachers should be given some fair time period, perhaps up to a full year including one full hiring season, to find a position in another school. If that period expires without the teacher finding a job through the voluntary staffing process, the district should have no further obligation to continue employing that teacher even if the teacher has a continuing contract. The provision for allowing time for a teacher to find another position should not apply when a district is involved in a reduction in force because of declining enrollment or budget reductions.


• If a teacher is not recommended for dismissal following a hearing process and the Board of Education places that teacher on a year of probation, the law should be clarified that the teacher can be non-renewed at the discretion of the superintendent at the end of that year if the teacher does not meet performance standards as defined in the evaluation process.

Implement the Professional Work Year

• Superintendents applaud the success of our teachers over the last five years. Their worlds have changed and the majority of teachers have met the challenges with distinction. However, despite the dramatic changes in the expectations and in the requirements, the time teachers have for teaching and for learning has not expanded significantly over the past 30 years. If we know that the well trained, well paid teacher is the key variable in changing student achievement, then we must find more time for meaningful teacher professional development and more time for intense work with students.


• If we are truly committed to reform in education, the teaching profession must be expanded to a full time profession. We would advocate that by having teachers work a longer year, they would have more time for instructing students and more time for adult learning. The science and art of teaching have changed. The time for developing skills in teaching has not.


• We understand that expanding the teacher work year would require significant new funds. We believe that school districts would willingly pilot the concept if any of the “Race to the Top” funds are dedicated to a professional work year for teachers and principals. We are willing to be held accountable for determining if more time for teachers results in meaningful changes in student learning.

Implement an Effective Evaluation System

• The sciences of assessment and measurement offer an opportunity to revise and, even, revolutionize how we evaluate districts, schools, and individuals. The evaluation processes for all three of those entities must be aligned and must be based on tangible results with students.
• We would advocate that Colorado develop a consistent evaluation system that is results based and fair and that aligns the systems used to evaluate districts, schools, and individuals.

Finally, we would encourage the distribution of Race to the Top funding to all school districts in Colorado. Our state has an opportunity to truly advance student achievement. All students in all districts should have access to the reforms that could be advanced with Race to the Top funds.

The superintendents represented by DASSC understand fully that our suggestions are not going to be welcomed by all stakeholders in public education. However, we believe it is time to professionalize education and take meaningful, bold steps related to Teacher Effectiveness. The vast majority of educators are capable, competent, and highly committed to their students. The steps we suggest above would strengthen an honorable profession.

Members of DASSC are willing to meet with anyone at any time to discuss our recommendations. Thank you for your work for the students of Colorado.

Sincerely,

The Denver Area School Superintendents, Council