As the legislature makes progress and, hopefully, passes the Johnston Bill (SB 10-191), which adds to the authority of school and district leaders to remove teachers deemed ineffective, it is important to reflect on what it is, is not and should become.
The bill is an opportunity to move the lowest 5 percent of teachers out of the classroom. We know that there is a wide range in teacher effectiveness and that ineffective teachers can severely hamper children’s progress. We have evidence that poor and minority students are more likely to have ineffective teachers. We also know that with training, teachers and school leaders can identify those teachers who are not effective.
What we don’t know is whether we can implement these types of systems across the state because the bill is not just about teachers; it is also about schools, districts and community leaders.
Our principal workforce is in flux. A new generation of principals is entering the labor market at the same time that we are redefining the job. Many schools will not have stable leadership over the next five to 10 years. That means district and community leaders are under increased obligation to make sure schools attract and retain effective teachers.
This week’s report on the Cesar Chavez School Network, as well as the experiences of Tresa Waggoner, at a minimum, make it clear that personnel decisions can be made for reasons other than effectiveness. You may recall that Ms. Waggoner was a music teacher in Bennett who was asked to leave after teaching the opera “Faust” to her students.
Communities will get what they expect out of their schools. If they do not support leaders as they do the hard work of developing and implementing systems to identify and support effective teachers, then they should not be surprised when their schools do not meet their expectations.
This bill is not about assessments. We do not have, nor do I expect us to develop assessments that will reliably identify effective teachers in the majority of our classrooms. More importantly, good educational practice means that many teachers are responsible for each student’s learning. I am deeply grateful to the three teachers who have helped my first-grade daughter learn to read this year. There is no magic statistical method to identify which teacher should get that credit, just as there is no way to know who added to a secondary student’s science scores. Should science teachers get all the credit, or should we thank the social studies teacher who taught her kids how to read critically and answer complex questions?
In a related vein, this is not about statistics. The idea that 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation should depend on student learning should be taken as a policy statement not a technical statement. If a teacher’s students are not learning, then he should not be rated as effective, no matter what else he does.
We do not want the pursuit of technically valid determinations of an individual teacher’s contributions to a students learning to overwhelm our primary goal of helping all students learn. We must ensure that implementation of this bill does not impede the development of effective teams of teachers working to help groups of students learn and grow.
Finally, this bill should not be about cruelty. Forcing ineffective teachers upon students is very cruel. However, firing teachers who are well into their careers but do not qualify for significant retirement under PERA and don’t have access to Social Security is also cruel. We must examine our teacher retirement system to ensure that it’s fair to teachers who leave their classrooms at all stages of their careers, not just those who persevere for 25 years.
This bill is not a silver bullet. While we know that teachers are critical to student learning, we also know that effective teaching is enhanced by aligned curricula and good colleagues. And we know that assembling and maintaining a team of effective teachers requires ensuring that schools are good places to work where people feel they can be effective. This is just a step in the process of building a system that supports effective teaching in all of our schools.
Popularity: 35% [?]
Possible pitfall? Try this on from the bill itself on the selection of the Governor’s Council membership: (III) FOUR TEACHERS, SELECTED WITH THE ADVICE OF A STATE ASSOCIATION THAT REPRESENTS EDUCATORS; Well, that covers the union, I suppose. I wonder if that means the CEA only or the AFT only or both or what. As for myself, I’m not a union member and I have no chance of being selected.
There will also be a parent: (VII) ONEPARENTOFAPUBLICSCHOOLSTUDENT,SELECTEDWITH
THE ADVICE OF A STATE PARENT AND TEACHERS ASSOCIATION;
Is that COPTA? Who knows? And I can’t wait to see the line of parents who will feel snubbed.
And every council needs one of these: (IX) ONE AT-LARGE MEMBER WITH EXPERTISE IN EDUCATION POLICY.
But as to what will constitute “expertise” might be a matter of considerable opinion. And therein lies my question: because this bill is so vague and ill-defined in a plethora of ways, might it be ripe for lawsuits and even just procedural delays that it never sees the light of day in practice?
And you know, I raised this item a long time ago and as of yet, NO ONE has provided me an explanation as why this is no big deal: THE RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH (a) SHALL REQUIRE THAT AT LEAST FIFTY PERCENT OF THE EVALUATION IS DETERMINED BY THE ACADEMIC GROWTH OF THE TEACHER’S STUDENTS…
Why 50%? I mean, really? What is that based on? What was Johnston thinking when he proposed that number. I’m not saying a number should not be there but I would like to know as to how or on what research basis the estimable Mr Wunderkind discovered that cool 50.
So, tell me how are the Superintendents and other high ranking administrators going to be held accountable? Aren’t they responsible if a majority of schools in the district are not performing well? If we are going to talk about accountability shouldn’t it be at all levels and not just the classroom? Maybe legislators should be fired if they don’t give our schools enough money to help the students. Is it so easy to let blame roll downhill than to look at larger systemic issues like who is steering the proverbial ship.
By the way, I’m tired of people stating that this is just one step in the process. Most parents would be outraged if a teacher said, “well, your child will receive an inferior education to the children who will be in next year’s class; it’s all just part of the process.” If we don’t expect high standards from our teachers we should expect high standards from the legislation that directs our teachers.
Finally, how much is the new assessment program going to cost, and where’s that money coming from, and how much less money does that mean for the classroom. I’m tired.
“If we don’t expect high standards from our teachers…”
should read “If we do expect…”
As a practitioner in the developing art and science of school improvement and change, I have to wonder if SB 191 is the right starting point for the kind of change we all want to see happen.
Dr. Reichert’s 5% works out to about one teacher in an average urban elementary school and perhaps 3 or 4 in a high school. The effect of this 5% is tiny compared to what we might see if we kept the poor or even average performing probationary teachers from achieving tenure in the first place. Add to that the number of teachers whose performance could be improved with someone properly monitoring and supervising the quality of their instruction. Finally, even average and above average performers can improve their results with high quality professional development. All of these actions are “doable” under present law and policy and would have a great effect on learning, yet they don’t get done.
Why not first attend to current studies on cultural change within the school or district – building relational trust, developing professional learning communities, and using data in a rigorous manner to design appropriate instruction and tailor individual intervention? I find this research base much stronger than anything supporting SB 191. Perhaps the kind of change I would like to see is just too hard and the system doesn’t know how to do it. It’s messy, involves cultural and personal change, etc. So because it’s hard, we default to policy solutions and structural changes – the things we know how to do…and do…and do again.
On top of this, SB 191 creates excessive mischief, adding another layer of problems requiring expert “assistance” and an additional set of bureaucratic requirements for teachers (good and bad) who are already overburdened with unproductive requirements. It also diminishes the public’s trust in ALL teachers. While I admire the goals of SB 191, it fear that it takes us away from the real work we should be doing, but seem to avoid.
SB 191 is unnecessary and disrespectful to teachers. Ineffective teachers can and have been been fired. The legal framework already exists to do that. Administrators are charged with that responsibility. It’s up to a building principal and administrative team to identify those teachers in need of mentoring and/or supervision. As this bill has traveled through the legislature, there were numerous opportunities for Michael Johnston to seek the advice and support of State Reps. Judy Solano and Mike Merrifield. He failed to do so. In that context, did fellow Democratic legislators also choose to disregard their thoughtful and logical questions, suggestions and objections to the bill. All the while, these same Democrats will publicly declare that they truly respect educators. Yet, provided the opportunity, 60 plus years of experience and acquired wisdom is being childishly cast aside for Johnston’s less than 10 years experience. Children will pay to fund this unnecessary legislation. This failure of courage and wisdom might prompt those evil teachers’ unions to contemplate the strategy of supporting certain candidates rather than donating money to a particular political party.
As a teacher, what I find most disrespectful and insulting is the way the Union addresses their emails to its members (including me,) telling us what to think, bolding the same talking points over and over, never providing a link to the actual language of the bill or even articles about SB 10-191, and overall treating teachers like overworked, mindless workhorses. Which is exactly the image we as a profession should want to reject.
I am also ashamed of the fiery rhetoric of the people against SB 10-191. Their quick jabs and anger makes it look like teachers can’t (or stubbornly refuse to) handle the same vetting processes that many other professions find normal.
I appreciate Mr. Galvin’s comments. I haven’t read the research, but the teachers I know speak highly of the schools and environments that actually put a priority on
“building relational trust, developing professional learning communities, and using data in a rigorous manner to design appropriate instruction and tailor individual intervention.”
I am afraid that the bill will become another set of ignored mandates, but I am also hopeful that it could be used as a tool in an effort to create more of those relational, collaborative, data-driven school environments of which Galvin and other teachers speak so highly.