SB 191: Our changes made a bad bill better,
work now shifts to Educator Council
posted May 12, 2010
Thanks to Association members' hard work through emails and calls to legislators and testimony in Senate and House hearings, the Legislature amended Senate Bill 191 (SB 191) in numerous ways. Our Association views nearly all the amendments as improvements to the bill.
SB 191 aimed for far-reaching changes to teacher and principal evaluation, a system that has historically been the responsibility of school districts with only simple guidelines in state statute. There were more than 200 proposed amendments to the lengthy bill since the Senate Education Committee held the first public hearing April 23.
Our Association views fair, credible teacher-principal evaluation as a pillar of a solid public education system – along with time to teach and plan; parent involvement and support; meaningful mentoring, coaching, and professional development; small classes and adequate facilities; and all education employees working together to support student achievement and school improvement.
We have never disagreed with the idea that the current evaluation law, written 25 years ago, needs to be improved. But SB 191 infringed on the role of the brand new Educator Effectiveness Council, established in December by Governor Bill Ritter. We opposed the bill from the outset as we wanted the council to do its work without predetermined outcomes – and the Legislature to set the parameters for a new evaluation system after that. Because SB 191 is not about good teaching, good learning, or good planning, we said, “Not so fast!”
We also knew that the bill is an unfunded mandate. The Legislature cut $130M from K-12 mid-year and another three quarters of a billion dollars for 2010-11. Districts cannot afford to create new evaluation systems and the state offered no money to help foot the bill.
Thousands of CEA members worked for six weeks to kill the bill. Alongside these efforts, CEA leaders and lobbyists met with legislators to see if we could improve the bill despite fierce opposition to any changes – opposition not only from the main sponsor, Sen. Michael Johnson (D-Denver), but from the community and nonprofit groups that supported him.
Many Friends of Public Education helped along the way in both the Senate and the House. A core of former teachers, now retired but whose hearts are still in the classroom, led the charge against the bill right to the end. They deserve your thanks.
Against the odds, CEA leaders, lobbyists, and members convinced legislators to amend the bill to change many provisions including:
1. SB 191 codifies the Educator Effectiveness Council in state law; makes the council’s work the key to the future of teacher-principal evaluation in Colorado public schools; and ensures that the next Governor cannot modify or eliminate the council. It strengthens the council by extending its implementation timelines (to 2014-15), giving it more time for its work and ensuring that its work will be done well.
2. The bill has checks-and-balances, such as the Legislature’s authority to sign off on Council recommendations, instead of recommending only to the State Board of Education.
3. The original bill required that 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation be based on student test scores. We succeeded in amending the bill so that the standard is “student longitudinal academic growth” determined by multiple measures, including evidence of students’ work.
The standard must also consider factors in a teacher’s working conditions, such as student mobility and a high proportion of high-risk students.
4. The original bill bumped a nonprobationary teacher with two consecutive years of “ineffective performance” back to probationary status without access to due process in state statute. We succeeded in changing the bill so that the teacher appeals this rating to a process developed through collective bargaining and/or to a mutually-agreed, neutral third party who will decide if the principal acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in determining this rating. The third party (similar to an arbitrator) will issue a final, permanent ruling that compels the school district to follow it.
5. The bill includes nonprobationary status portability: a nonprobationary teacher who gets a job in a different district provides evidence of his/her performance evaluations and “transfers” the nonprobationary status into the new district – without starting over as a probationary teacher.
6. The bill requires that principals be evaluated on how well they meet the requirements of the evaluation law as they evaluate teachers, along with students’ academic growth and the number of teachers in the school who are rated effective/highly effective.
7. The original bill stated that a teacher could not be hired or transferred into a school without the principal’s consent. We succeeded in amending the bill, adding a school-based hiring provision in which at least two teachers at the school are selected by the faculty to work with the principal in the hiring process. The bill also requires that the district work with its teachers association to develop policy for long term circumstances in which nonprobationary teachers are displaced from their jobs due to declining enrollment, program reduction, school closure, etc.
The 15-member Educator Effectiveness Council, with three CEA members, has a huge responsibil-ity, beginning with the job of defining “effectiveness” and how to measure it. The council will determine how a new evaluation system will work; how 178 districts will develop their own systems; what training will be provided to principals and teachers; and more.
Our Association has supported and been involved in every education reform measure in this state – CAP4K, longitudinal growth, accountability, accreditation. We are involved in teacher-principal evaluation too, and we will assist the Educator Effectiveness Council so it successfully completes its many, many charges.
We know that teachers are the key to student learning. We know that our job is supporting our profession and ensuring there is a quality teacher in every classroom in Colorado. We will continue advocating for sensible changes – because our members know what works.
THANK THESE FRIENDS OF OUR ASSOCIATION – ALL MEMBERS OF THE COLORADO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -- FOR THEIR TIRELESS WORK ON SB 191. Others in the House and Senate helped too, but these legislators are STARS!
Rep. Michael Merrifield (Colorado Springs), House Ed Chair*
Rep. Judy Solano (Brighton)*
Rep. Nancy Todd (Aurora)*
Rep. Cherylin Peniston (Westminster)*
Rep. Claire Levy (Boulder)
Rep. Sara Gagliardi (Arvada)
Rep. Sue Schafer (Wheat Ridge)*
Rep. Debbie Benefield (Arvada)
Rep. Su Ryden (Aurora)
Rep. Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (Longmont)
Rep. Paul Weissmann (Louisville)
Rep. Jack Pommer (Boulder)
Rep. Joel Judd (Denver)
Rep. Max Tyler (Lakewood)
Rep. Randy Fischer (Ft. Collins)
Rep. Sal Pace (Pueblo)
*former public school teachers
Denver Post Guest Commentary
by Education Commissioner Dwight Jones
April 12, 2010
Finishing the Race to the Top
In the wake of the announcement that Delaware and Tennessee were the sole recipients in the initial Race to the Top competition, there's been much ado about Colorado's faring in round one.
Colorado's Race to the Top application featured the very reform plan we began implementing with bipartisan support from the governor, legislature, state Board of Education and school district leaders statewide. Colorado's reform plan is a strong one. Scoring irregularities aside, our reviewers generally agreed on this point.
As one reviewer noted, "The activities presented in the application . . . are . . . related to ongoing programs started well before [Race to the Top focused] on increased student achievement, decreasing achievement gaps . . . and increasing the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers."
This second round of Race to the Top is not about Delaware and Tennessee, or even about how Colorado compares. It is a new competition among the remaining states that are prepared to adopt bold, innovative reform measures that are at least as ambitious as those they are willing to implement in order to dramatically increase student achievement. State Sen. Mike Johnston's soon-to-be-introduced Educator Evaluations and Effectiveness bill is an example of one such measure.
I believe passing a new state law addressing teacher effectiveness might boost our chances in the second round. However, Sen. Johnston's bill is not just about Race to the Top, but teacher tenure and due process, as well as forced placement-issues which are not new to the state and which need to be discussed. Now is a good time to do so, Race or no Race. Our continued avoidance of this discussion will continue to get us nowhere.
Case in point: With 55,000 tenured teachers, the New York City Department of Education dismissed only three teachers for incompetence in a two-year period. That's a mere 0.00005 percent of the work force. Few believe the other 99.99995 percent of teachers are doing a stellar job. The numbers in other cities and states, including here in Colorado, also suggest that the system — the people running the schools and districts, and the tools at their disposal — are not yet up to the task. Too many teachers who don't make the grade in one school are passed along (or forced-placed) to the next.
Also not new, though unpopular with some, is the idea of tying at least 50 percent of a teacher's evaluation to his or her students' achievement — an expressed directive of the governor's January executive order commissioning his Council for Educator Effectiveness. Sen. Johnston's bill codifies this directive, further emphasizing the need for a fair and accurate evaluation system.
Personally, I believe we have let teachers down by not adequately and consistently providing them evaluations. As professionals, their performance on the job should be evaluated using multiple measures, just as professionals in other industry and business sectors are evaluated. They deserve to know how well they are doing their jobs and what they could do better. We are fortunate in Colorado to have a teaching corp willing to step up and be held accountable. Few other states can boast of similar leadership from their teachers unions.
What will be made clear in Colorado's revised submission are the efforts both planned and underway to provide teachers the support, training and development they need to be effective educators. Sen. Johnston's bill pulls together the requisite pieces to establish an educator effectiveness system. And regardless of whether a new teacher effectiveness law might improve our chances in round two, Colorado needs better teacher evaluation systems. Period.
And so the Race to the Top continues, though the size of the prize has diminished. In round two, Colorado may apply for a maximum of $175 million, which is $202 million less than requested in round one. That said, however, we can do a lot with $175 million, and we can do so with fidelity.
With round two come new reviewers with new ideas about what constitutes a winning application. We have no guarantee of success. We are, however, confident of one thing: Colorado's reform plan is a strong plan. It's a smart plan. And it's the right plan for Colorado's students.
Dwight Jones is Colorado’s education commissioner.
Response from CEA Executive Director, Tony Salazar
April 13, 2010
Commissioner Jones:
I was very disappointed to learn of your Denver Post guest commentary supporting Senator Michael Johnston's "Educator Effectiveness" bill. I was surprised to see how closely you linked the legislation to the pending success of Colorado's Phase 2 Race to the Top application. Your commentary seems to suggest you have given up on the strong collaboration with teachers and the Colorado Education Association that was a centerpiece in Phase 1.
The CEA has been a committed partner in Colorado's Race to the Top process and application since the beginning of the work. Colorado was one of the few states that had a union representative on a state team interviewing in Washington D.C. in mid-March. CEA's Director of Teaching and Learning Linda Barker worked tirelessly with the Colorado team to present a product that would move our public education system forward.
The CEA has been engaged in the educator effectiveness conversation for several years. We have taken leadership roles in shaping legislation to create the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, the educator identifier system, the longitudinal growth model, the TELL survey, and stipends to reward teachers with National Board Certification. Most of these efforts were done in collaboration with your department. In December, we worked with Governor Ritter and your staff to create the Governor's Educator Effectiveness Council focused on creating a definition of educator effectiveness and a new educator evaluation system that will be used to make high-stakes decisions about teacher employment and compensation.
The Governor's Council was a major component of the Race to the Top Phase I application and was applauded by the USDOE reviewers. Now that the Phase 1 results have been released, it has become fashionable to label the CEA as the scapegoat for the state's 14th place finish. Your Denver Post commentary shows that you have joined Senator Johnston on the bandwagon of blaming teachers and their professional association for Colorado's Race to the Top shortfall, instead of focusing on all areas of the state application that need improvement for Phase 2.
Rumors have been circulating for several days that the state does not need our Association's support for Phase 2 success. Senator Johnston has contributed to this in comments made in the Denver Post and elsewhere. Now your column reinforces this approach, which is the antithesis to the collaboration with teachers that you have stated the importance of so many times.
The CEA stands firm in our support for the Governor's Council for Educator Effectiveness to do good work in creating a meaningful educator evaluation system that can be used to improve teacher effectiveness. Shortcutting this process with political motivations to strip teachers of their rights does nothing to help build a better education system focused on teaching and learning. It is unfortunate that you have given up on the Council so quickly, especially when staff from your own Department of Education is spearheading this important effort.
The CEA will remain engaged and committed to the Governor's Council. We believe this is where the real work will get done -- not in shortsighted, hasty legislation. As long as you are tying Colorado's Race to the Top success to Senator Johnston's legislation, we are unable to remain partners in the Phase 2 effort.
During the Phase I interview last month in Washington, you stated that you were not willing to "throw teachers under the bus." Your support of the Johnston bill and its linkage to Race to the Top does exactly that!
Respectfully,
Tony Salazar
Executive Director
Colorado Education Association
A Letter to Lawmakers
By Diane Ravitch on April 6, 2010 8:13 AM
Dear Deborah,
Today I am going to cheat. Well, not really cheat, but just deal with the fact that I am hard pressed to find time to do much more than breathe and sleep (I do not include "eat" because I have been skipping meals, and I should not include "sleep" because I don't do much of that either.) I have been lecturing, writing, and traveling nonstop. I am getting, on average, about 100 emails daily from readers of my book, mainly teachers who either say "thank you" or "help." My book appears at #16 on The New York Times best-seller list for next Sunday.
So many people, especially teachers, feel powerless in the face of an onslaught against their professionalism. Last week, I wrote about the awful legislation in Florida, which will strip teachers of tenure and judge them by student test scores. Teachers in that state asked me to come to Tallahassee and testify, but I couldn't be there because I was lecturing in Boston on the day of the hearing. So, I wrote a letter to the legislature, and I am going to post it here.
To: The Honorable Members of the Florida Legislature
From: Diane Ravitch
Dear Members,
I wish that I could be in Tallahassee to address you personally but prior commitments make it impossible to do so.
I am a historian of American education at New York University.
I served as Assistant Secretary of Research and Improvement in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. I was a founding member of the Koret Task Force of the Hoover Institution. I was also a founding trustee of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. I have been studying and writing about American education for 40 years.
I write to oppose SB 6/HB 7189.
I understand that this bill would prohibit districts from paying teachers in relation to their experience and education, but would base teachers' salaries mainly on student gains on standardized tests. I further understand that it is the law's intent to develop new tests for every subject area, paid for by reducing operating expenses by 5 percent in the schools.
I strongly believe that this bill will have very negative consequences for the children of the state of Florida. I believe that it will dumb down their education. I believe that it will cause many of your best teachers to leave the profession or the state because this legislation is so profoundly disrespectful towards the education profession.
I urge you not to pass this bill.
My new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, demonstrates that pay-for-scores schemes don't work. The main reason they don't work is that the measures were not intended for that purpose. Standardized tests are intended to evaluate whether students have learned what they were taught. They are not designed to assess teacher effectiveness or teacher quality. The more that teachers focus on these measures, the more they rob children of time for instruction and for the activities that engage children in their education and promote comprehension.
Teachers are not solely the cause of student progress. If students fail to make progress in their studies, there are many reasons for their failure. The causes of academic success or failure include the students' own effort; the students' regular attendance or lack thereof; the family's support or lack thereof; the family's poverty and its effects on the student's health and well-being; the school's resources; the district's oversight or lack thereof; and the quality of the test itself, which may be subject to random variation. It makes no sense to hold the teacher alone accountable when student performance is affected by so many different influences.
Should the teacher get a bad evaluation if students have a poor attendance record? Should the teacher be harshly judged if her students don't speak English or move frequently from school to school? Should the teacher get an F if the student has poor eyesight or suffers from other undiagnosed health problems? Should the teacher be considered a failure if the student's family offers no support for his learning?
Since the 1920s, American schools have experimented with merit pay plans. None has ever demonstrated success. Teachers will bend their efforts to raise test scores, but achievement nonetheless lags. The reason for this is that teaching-to-the-test does not yield good education. The students may learn test-taking skills, but they don't learn how to generalize what they have learned to new situations. Thus, even when state reading scores go up, in response to intensive coaching, national test scores remain flat. As the national tests become more demanding—in 8th grade—the scores don't rise at all.
Our nation has now had eight consecutive years of rising reading scores at the state level, yet the national scores for 8th grade students have not budged from 1998-2009. The reason for the discrepancy is that students are learning test-taking skills, but they are unable to understand complex materials or to demonstrate their progress on a test that is not the state test.
Test scores do not identify the most effective teachers. A teacher who produces big score gains one year may produce none the next year, depending on which students happen to be in his or her class.
The legislation now under consideration will not improve education in Florida. It will harm kids and their teachers.
I urge you to stop and reflect. The research on teacher effectiveness does not support the policies of SB 6/HB 7189. Please defeat this legislation.
Yours truly,
Diane Ravitch
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.
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
Changes in the Teacher Dismissal Act
Implement the Professional Work Year
Implement an Effective Evaluation System
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