It’s time to take a breath during the calm before Part II of the Senate Education Committee’s SB 191 hearings. But really, how calm has it been? With among other developments the four living Colorado governors (three Democrats, one Republican) chiming in with a published op-ed to say “at this time no proposal has greater promise for transforming education in Colorado than Senate Bill 10‐191,” it’s getting rather lonely on the No side of the ledger.

Desperate to muster its opposition forces, the CEA is calling in its tax-funded release time favors (MP3) to bring several dozen teachers to the State Capitol to lobby legislators and help pack the seats in the Old Supreme Court chambers:

[Republican state senator Nancy] Spence is wondering what the reasoning is for pulling teachers out of classrooms and then not having them actually testify, on record, before the committee. Spence said that the only on-the-record opponents of the bill were union officials—not rank and file teachers or parents.

“I was astonished that the CEA leadership from across the street monopolized the testimony time and the rank and file teachers were not given the opportunity to testify,” said Spence. “I would have liked to hear from the rank-and-file teachers on this bill that their union leaders are opposing. So far we’ve only heard from the union officials.”

And what we heard was only illuminating if you read between the lines. A new amendment agreed to by sponsor Michael Johnston clarified possible concerns, extended timelines and eased the evaluation requirements on principals. Still, CEA won’t budge from its opposition (and even found a way to drag its subsidiary, the Colorado PTA, into testifying against SB 191). Lawmakers both Democrat and Republican on the panel probed union officials testifying to try to discern what it would take to get them on board.

In his posting yesterday, Alan correctly identified one key linchpin in CEA’s opposition:

Why not just come out and say it: The CEA does not want teachers evaluated based on standardized test scores, even using a growth model, which sets a lower bar than using “status.” I’ll tell you why CEA won’t come out and say it: Because that sounds just as bad as it is.

The other conditio sine qua non for the union to support the bill? CEA doesn’t want to see even one ineffective senior teacher lose access to their special tenure-like job protections.

On both fronts, the union’s stances put them out of touch with the majority of Colorado voters. Seeking to balance the new Stand for Children poll’s powerful findings concerning Coloradans’ support for reforms to teacher evaluations, tenure and direct placement, CEA executive director Tony Salazar cited a 2009 Gallup poll that he said shows the public considers lack of funding a more crucial need for K-12 education than lack of good teachers.

Which 2009 Gallup poll was he talking about? Perhaps this one: “Public Says Better Teachers Are Key to Improved Education.” Then again, maybe not. In any case, I’m quite certain union officials weren’t referring to this one, though CEA’s recent actions aren’t doing anything to help reverse that trend.

Popularity: 4% [?]