Colorado, unlike Florida, passes major tenure reform bill

[30ashopper]

Colorado's legislature changed tenure rules despite opposition from the state's largest teacher's union, a longtime ally of majority Democrats. Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, signed the bill into law last month.

After the bill survived a filibuster attempt and passed a key House vote, Democratic Rep. Nancy Todd, a 25-year teacher who opposed the measure, broke into tears.

"I don't question your motives," an emotional Todd said to the bill's proponents. "But I do want you to hear my heart because my heart is speaking for over 40,000 teachers in the state of Colorado who have been given the message that it is all up to them."

While other states have tried to modify tenure, Colorado's law was the boldest education reform in recent memory, according to Kate Walsh, the president of the Washington-based National Council on Teacher Quality, which promotes changing the way teachers are recruited and retained, including holding tenured teachers accountable with annual reviews.

Walsh thinks Colorado is now at the head of the pack in the second round of the Obama administration's Race to the Top competition, a $4.35 billion pot of stimulus money designed to prod just such changes.

"If I was a betting woman, I would absolutely put Colorado in first place," she said.

The new law requires teachers to be evaluated annually, with at least half of their rating based on whether their students progressed during the school year. Beginning teachers will have to show they've boosted student achievement for three straight years to earn tenure.

Teachers could lose tenure if their students don't show progress for two consecutive years. That won't be a possibility until 2015, however, because lawmakers slowed down the process under political pressure from the teachers' union. Teachers can appeal dismissal all the way to the state Supreme Court, and school districts have the burden of proving why they should be terminated.

Under the old system, teachers simply had to work for three years to gain tenure, the typical wait around the country.

Every state but Wisconsin has some form of tenure. The protections were intended to protect teachers from being fired because of their politics, religion or other arbitrary reasons. But Patrick McGuinn, a political science professor at Drew University who has studied tenure, said they have evolved into virtual employment guarantees.

On average, school districts across the country dismiss 2.1 percent of teachers annually, generally for bad conduct rather than performance.

Colorado's measure is a tribute to the tenacity of freshman Democratic state Sen. Michael Johnston, a former Teach for America teacher, principal and Obama education adviser.

The 35-year-old Harvard- and Yale-trained lawyer was appointed to represent a largely minority Denver district that has seen an influx of more white residents because of redevelopment of the city's former airport. He successfully fought changes to the bill that would have eased expectations for teachers with traditionally low performing students.

"What we're saying is that it matters that every one of those kids will get across the finish line," Johnston said.

Although various states have responded to the lure of federal money by moving to tie teacher evaluations to student performance, no other state specifically changed its tenure laws as Colorado did.

A push to eliminate tenure for all new teachers and make it easier to fire teachers in Florida passed the Legislature this year but was vetoed by Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, who is now running for the U.S. Senate as an independent.

In bold move, Colorado alters teacher tenure rules - Yahoo! News

Crist could learn a thing or two about leadership from his democrat counterpart in Colorado.

 

[Bob]

i've come for your soul

 

[Bob Wells]

They also passed a an Amendment 1 type bill which as I understand it was a failure and they had to repeal it.

 

[Beach Runner]

I have no clue, but isn't Colorado pretty homogeneous?

Not the case here. North of the main street through town has a totally different socioeconomic profile than south of the main street. For the most part the kids on the north side of town have the advantage of a higher socioeconomic profile as compared to those on the south side. I am a Junior League sustainer, and we have had homework helplines for students on the south side who can't get homework help from their parents because their parents can't read.

So it goes without saying that if a teacher is assigned to a school on the north side, his/her students will have better test scores than a teacher on the south side. I know from getting stuck teaching a low-level class this spring (long story) that teaching poor achievers is much more work than teaching better students. So I'd think those who teach the most disadvantaged students might be paid more. Not the case if pay is based on test scores.

Not fair. Unfortunately, wouldn't every teacher want to teach the advantaged kids to keep tenure? No matter how well intentioned a teacher might be, there are bills to pay.

 

[poppy]

I have no clue, but isn't Colorado pretty homogeneous?

Not the case here. North of the main street through town has a totally different socioeconomic profile than south of the main street. For the most part the kids on the north side of town have the advantage of a higher socioeconomic profile as compared to those on the south side. I am a Junior League sustainer, and we have had homework helplines for students on the south side who can't get homework help from their parents because their parents can't read.

So it goes without saying that if a teacher is assigned to a school on the north side, his/her students will have better test scores than a teacher on the south side. I know from getting stuck teaching a low-level class this spring (long story) that teaching poor achievers is much more work than teaching better students. So I'd think those who teach the most disadvantaged students might be paid more. Not the case if pay is based on test scores.

Not fair. Unfortunately, wouldn't every teacher want to teach the advantaged kids to keep tenure? No matter how well intentioned a teacher might be, there are bills to pay.

Good post.

 

[GoodWitch58]

in addition to all the good things in BR's post, there is also the "little" matter of the testing that would have been necessary under SB6, and the lobbying firm that is associated with the bill's sponsor.. that worked for the test company...that is associated with a former governor.

this had little to do with education, it was more about money.

Governor Crist showed great leadership and courage to stand up to these guys IMO and in the IMO of a great number of teachers and parents who really care about the education of our children.
The fact that it may help him politically in some circles is an added benefit to him, but at least our children and teachers won't suffer while some test companies get richer.

 

[Bob]

this is about crushing a democratic labor union. if the repubs cared about public education they would not gut funding while taxing the poor to support shortfalls with lotto. they would not try at every turn to enhance private, christian schools to the detriment of public education, and they would vote to raise salaries 30-50 percent, and allow local administrators to fire problem educators.

 

[Cil]

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

In terms of white population, Colorado *is* fairly homogeneous, but that is not to say that Caucasian automatically equals high achievement.
In any case, Denver is rapidly changing: At least 34% of that city is Hispanic. The Denver public schools, where I as well as my kids attended, certainly had their inequalities, and families had to learn to work the system to make sure that their student was properly served.

When we moved to Florida, it was the same situation; it is up to the parents to take some responsibility.