Upload
trygg
View
26
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The Future of Education in Colorado. S. B. 10-191. No Child Left Behind Act (2002). Numerous States Have Recently Enacted Education Reform. Several States Have Attempted Reforms But Have Failed. National Debate Regarding Education Reform. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The Future of Education in Colorado
S. B. 10-191
National Debate Regarding Education Reform
No Child Left Behind Act (2002)
Numerous States Have Recently
Enacted Education Reform
Several States Have Attempted Reforms
But Have Failed
In Colorado the Debate Culminated With The
Passage of S.B. 10-191
Sponsored by Senator Michael Johnston, D-Denver
Signed into Law by Governor Bill Ritter on May 21st, 2010
Impetus Behind Education Reform
Race to the Top
Quality of Teacher in the Classroom
Colorado Student Performance
Changes Implemented by S.B. 10-191
Repealed the State Licensed Personnel Performance Evaluation Council
Redefined Non-Probationary Teacher
Development of a System that Measures Teacher Effectiveness Through a Set of Quality Standards
State Licensed Personnel Performance Evaluation Council was Repealed
Replaced by the Governor’s Council for Educator Effectiveness (Council)
By Executive Order on January 13th, 2010
15 Member Body
Representatives Chosen and Elected From Throughout the Colorado Public School System
Duties of the CouncilPromulgate Rules Concerning a System to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Educators
Establish Guidelines for Establishing Performance Standards for Different Categories of Educators
Determine the Involvement of Parents in a Child’s Education as it Relates to Teacher EffectivenessCreate a Statewide Definition of Principal and Teacher Effectiveness, to be Centered on a Demonstrated Ability to Achieve and Sustain Adequate Student Academic Growth
Measure Effectiveness Through a Set of Quality StandardsDesign a Process by Which a Non-Probationary Teacher May Appeal Rating of Ineffectiveness
Timeline March 2011 – Council provides the State Board of Education with recommendations regarding a new teacher-principal evaluation system
September 2011 – State Board promulgates rules using the Council’s recommendations and submits them to the Legislature by January 2012
January 2012 – Council submits its recommendation for a process by which a non-probationary teacher may appeal a second consecutive “ineffective” performance rating
September 2012 (2012-13 school year) – New evaluation system is pilot tested; non-probationary teachers begin to be evaluated annually
September 2013 (2013-14 school year) – New system is fully implemented statewide; teachers are evaluated on quality standards during this school year; demonstrated effectiveness is considered in determining probationary and non-probationary status
September 2014 (2014-15 school year) – New evaluation system is finalized and put into full statewide use
Teacher “Tenure” Redefined
History of Teacher Tenure in ColoradoThe Word “Tenure” was Literally Removed from Colorado Law in 1990 with Passage of House Bill 90-1159 The Teacher Employment, Compensation and Dismissal Act of 1990
The System Remained in Tact
In Place of Tenure, Teachers Became Classified as Either Probationary or Non-Probationary
Probationary Teachers Were Defined as a Teacher who has not Completed Three Full Years of Continuous Employment with the Employing School District and who has not Been Reemployed for the Fourth Year
Advantages and Protections Granted by Tenure
Probationary Teachers may be Dismissed for Virtually any Reason
Non-Probationary Teachers cannot be Dismissed without Due-Process
14th Amendment Provides Property Interests in Teacher’s Jobs
Non-Probationary Teachers cannot be Dismissed without Cause
S.B. 10-191: Effects on TenureRedefines Probationary Teacher as a Teacher who has not Completed Three Consecutive Years of Demonstrated Effectiveness or a Non-Probationary Teacher who has had Two Consecutive Years of Demonstrated Ineffectiveness
Does Make Provision for a Teacher to Appeal Ineffective Rating
Does not Challenge 14th Amendment Rights
Burden of Proof and Shared Cost of Review
Why was this Deemed Necessary?
Estimated that 5% of Teachers are Ineffective Yet Only 1% are Dismissed
Can Take up to 3 Years to Dismiss a Teacher
Can Cost up to $100,000 to Dismiss a Teacher
Quality Standards
System that Measures Teacher Effectiveness Through a Set of Quality
Standards
Unknown What the System Will be Until March of 2011
By Law, 50% of Teachers Evaluation Will be Determined by the Academic Growth of the Teacher’s Students
High Probability That System Will Include Value-Added Analysis Through the use of Standardized Tests
The Problems with Standardized Tests
Problems with Standardized Tests and Value-Added Analysis
25% of Value-Added Assessments are Likely to be in Error
National Academy of Sciences Discourages Sole Use
Fear of Teaching to the Test
Recognition of the Weaknesses of Value-Added Analysis by S.B. 10-191
Special Education
Student Mobility
Student Population Composed of 95% of High-Risk Students
Unsure What the Criteria for the Other 50% of a Teacher’s Evaluation Will be Comprised Of
Conclusion and QuestionsAlters Teacher Tenure
Links Teacher Effectiveness with Student Performance
Funding
Potential Teachers and Veteran Teachers May Chose to Leave the Profession
Transfer by Mutual Consent