NOT SO FAST! Why We Must “KILL THE BILL” Boulder Valley Education Association.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Michael Barlow Teacher Evaluation and Career Status under Senate Bill 2033
Advertisements

Bargaining Under the New Law. How did we get here? October 2010: ETA members ratify extension of CBA to June 30, 2014 February 2011 : SB 1 (collective.
Evaluation Orientation Meeting Teacher Evaluation System
Teacher Evaluation and Pay for Performance Michigan Education Association Spring 2011.
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education Updated: July 2011.
What You Must Know About Teacher Extension and Renewal Presented by: Maureen Sloane Dianna Hanlon.
Wethersfield Teacher Evaluation and Support Plan
Katonah-Lewisboro School District Annual Professional Performance Review Update 5/23/
MYTHS, WIVES’ TALES & URBAN LEGENDS DEBUNKING ER MISCONCEPTIONS JUNE 2014.
National Debate Regarding Education Reform No Child Left Behind Act (2002) Numerous States Have Recently Enacted Education Reform Several States Have.
Annual Orientation. NC State Board Policy # TCP-004: “Within two weeks of a teacher’s first day of work in any school year, the principal will provide.
Overview of The Legislation’s Purpose and Requirements CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION School Governance Councils.
Update on Teacher and Principal Evaluation Implementation of ARS
TEACHER EVALUATION What it is going to look like….
Teacher Practice in  In 2012, the New Jersey Legislature unanimously passed the TEACHNJ Act, which mandates implementation of a new teacher.
Reevaluation Exceptional Children Division 1. Reevaluation NC Policies , , and
Getting Organized for the Transition to the Common Core What You Need to Know.
Oregon Framework for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems Alignment of State and Federal Requirements SB 290 ESEA Waiver Oregon Framework.
August 15, 2012 Fontana Unified School District Superintendent, Cali Olsen-Binks Associate Superintendent, Oscar Dueñas Director, Human Resources, Mark.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008 Chapter 10 Tenure, Dismissal, and Due Process This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law.
Presented by Dr. Joe Robinson SENATE BILL Senate Bill 2033 Became Effective on May 28, 2010 Senate-Coffee, Jolley, Ford, Rice and Leftwich House-Benge.
Chapter 10: Recruitment, Tenure, Dismissal and Due Process EDAD 859
MICHIGAN’S EDUCATOR EVALUATION RULES, REGULATIONS, RIGHTS....OH MY... WHAT EVERY NEW TEACHER NEEDS TO KNOW! RULES, REGULATIONS, RIGHTS....OH MY... WHAT.
Educator Evaluations Education Accountability Summit August 26-28,
Legislative Changes to the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (AB 340 and AB 197) Presented by: Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association.
1 Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Process CDE Briefing for the Colorado State Board of Education March 5, 2008.
Educator Effectiveness in Colorado State Policy Framework & Approach October 2014.
New Teacher Contracts in North Carolina Understanding the Implications of Section 9.6 from Senate Bill 402.
1 NCAE LEGAL How we got where we are How we get where we need to be.
Teacher Quality Initiative Evaluating Current Practice, SB 6, and the 2011 initiative 1.
©2011 Bose McKinney & Evans LLP BACK TO SCHOOL WITH SENATE BILL 1 Michelle L. Cooper Bose McKinney & Evans LLP (317)
Interim Joint Committee on Education June 11, 2012.
The Education Improvement Act (Bill 22) From District Maximum Avgs. K – 19 (2002) 1 – 3 – 21 (2002) 4 – 7 – 28 (2006) 8 – 12 – 30 (2002) Maximums K – 22.
DECEMBER 10, 2014 MARK SASS EDUCATION REFORM. GOALS FOR TODAY Overview of three main pieces of legislation that impact our practice NCLB RTT SB 191 Philosophical.
The Hoosier State – Leading the Nation’s Comprehensive Education Reform Movement Indiana’s Success Story.
Collective Bargaining Retreat for Management Discussion of the Impact of Measuring Teacher and Leader Effectiveness on Collective Bargaining August 17,
Michigan Tenure Law Update By Glenn Maleyko Director of Human Resources Dearborn Public Schools August 25th, 2011 General Administrators meeting.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
1 TEACHERS’ LEGAL ISSUES A FINAL FEW WORDS!. 2 THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.
Factoring Growth Models Into Administrator and Teacher Performance Evaluations -- a presentation for -- Henderson, Mercer, and Warren Counties Regional.
Toolkit #3: Effectively Teaching and Leading Implementation of the Oklahoma C 3 Standards, Including the Common Core.
M.D.G. Scholars Program -Capstone Presentation-.
School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders, 5e © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 10 Tenure,
General Unit Meeting June 1 st NYSUT Local Presidents Conference 1.
Educator Effectiveness Evaluation MERA Fall 2013 Conference November 25-26, 2013 Frankenmuth, Michigan.
Teacher Employment Provisions In HB 2227: Impact and Implications for School Districts Chris Thomas, ASBA General Counsel AASBO Bi-Monthly Meeting, May.
2012 – 2013 School Year. OTES West Branch Local Schools.
What you need to know about changes in state requirements for Teval plans.
TEACHER EVALUATION After S.B. 290 The Hungerford Law Firm June, 2012.
Legal Issues in Administrator Evaluation, Dismissal and Nonrenewal Nancy Hungerford, The Hungerford Law Firm Dec. 3, 2015.
May Education in the Budget Evaluation; Tenure; Tenured teacher disciplinary hearings; Teacher preparation and certification; and Intervention in.
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education September 2010.
Excellent Public Schools Act of 2013 Instructional Collaboration Day II January 3, 2014.
1 Senate Bill 130 Innovation Schools Act of 2008.
UPDATE ON EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS IN MICHIGAN Directors and Representatives of Teacher Education Programs April 22, 2016.
Teacher Evaluation Components in Legislation Rose Hermodson Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education May 2, 2012.
Educator Evaluation Mary K. Bradley, Associate Director for School Operations Mark J. Weinberg, Director of Academic Performance & Accountability The Center.
1 Rose Hermodson Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education December 13, 2011 Teacher Evaluation Components in Legislation.
Making Sense of the New Teacher & Administrator Rules Tuesday, September 25, 2012 Renee Papelian Director of Professional Education College of Education.
UACT and CVUSD Certificated Employee Development and Evaluation Procedures For The School Year.
Chapter 10 Tenure, Dismissal, and Due Process
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education Updated: June 2012.
Presented By: Joseph J. Perkoski
Education Employment Procedures Law of 2001
Illinois Performance Evaluation Advisory Council Update
Five Required Elements
WHAT ABOUT CONTRACT TEACHERS?
Illinois Performance Evaluation Advisory Council Update
Michigan’s Educator Evaluations
Colorado Department of Education
Presentation transcript:

NOT SO FAST! Why We Must “KILL THE BILL” Boulder Valley Education Association

NOT SO FAST! Senator Michael Johnston’s (D-Denver) educator bill, SB 191, otherwise known as the EQUITEE bill requires all teachers (probationary and non-probationary) and all principals to be evaluated every year. Evaluations conducted every two or three years would no longer be the standard. SB 191changes the purposes of evaluations to include supporting the state in the “equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals” (though it does not say how this distribution would occur). SB 191says that evaluation will be the basis for decision making in hiring, compensation, promotion, assignment, professional development, earning and keeping probationary status, dismissal, and contract nonrenewal.

NOT SO FAST! SB 191 bases teacher evaluations on “effectiveness.” The term is not defined. It also requires that principals evaluate teachers with “multiple methods that are fair, transparent, timely, and rigorous.” Those terms are not defined, nor are the methods. SB 191 also allows principals to designate others to do teacher evaluations, perhaps opening the door to peer reviewers who would have the authority to recommend dismissal of a teacher.

NOT SO FAST! SB 191 requires that at least 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation be based on student academic growth. The multiple measures already mentioned will be used to determine a teacher’s “effectiveness” and shall include (but are not limited to) measures of student longitudinal academic growth and achievement levels on any statewide assessments in the relevant subject and grade level (i.e., CSAP). Locally adopted interim assessments approved by the State Board of Education to assess student academic growth in the relevant subject and grade level (in other words, tests that districts develop and that must be approved by the State Board) could also be used. This requirement appears to apply to every teacher even if he/she teaches in a subject or at a grade level where CSAP is not given.

NOT SO FAST! SB 191 defines a probationary teacher as one who has not yet completed three consecutive years of “demonstrated effectiveness.” Under SB 191, teachers win and lose non-probationary status. A non- probationary teacher loses due process with two consecutive years of “demonstrated ineffectiveness.” Then this teacher must build three new consecutive years of “demonstrated effectiveness” in order to win back non-probationary status. Presumably, one proceeds through one’s teaching career like this. A non-probationary teacher who loses their status would be subject to non-renewal regardless of their years of non-probationary status or employment in the district.

NOT SO FAST! SB 191 requires school boards to develop and implement new evaluation systems based on “effectiveness.” District systems must meet or exceed the state’s measures of “effectiveness.” District systems must provide that all teachers and principals are evaluated annually, and the systems must serve as the basis for “ineffective performance dismissal” (a new term that would be in the state due process law). The systems must also provide that any teacher whose performance is deemed “ineffective” be given a remediation plan. SB 191 says these teachers will get two things besides a remediation plan - a reasonable period of time to remediate deficiencies and a “statement of the resources and assistance available for the purpose of improving effectiveness.

NOT SO FAST! RIF (reduction in force) is changed under SB 191. The bill requires using “teacher ineffectiveness” to determine RIFs. The law would no longer state that probationary teacher contracts are cancelled first in a RIF. SB 191 provides that no teacher can be hired or transferred into a school without the “school’s” consent. This would supersede current CBA (collective bargaining agreement) provisions and current board policy. If a teacher cannot get an assignment after two hiring cycles – because he or she cannot get the consent of a receiving school – the teacher goes on unpaid leave.

NOT SO FAST! School boards must also adapt their principal evaluations so that at least 66% of a principal’s evaluation is based on a combination of student academic growth and the effectiveness or increased effectiveness of the teachers who work in the principal’s school.

NOT SO FAST! SB 191 does not codify the Governor’s Educator Effectiveness Council, but it gives the council more jobs. It also makes the council work closely with the State Board of Education and allows the State Board to take over the council’s work if that work is not completed by December 31, Instead of the Governor’s Educator Effectiveness Council making recommendations to the Legislature, the council will make recommendations to the State Board. Three State Board seats are up for election in November 2010: Angelika Schroeder (up for re-election, former BVSD school board member) and the seats held by Peggy Littleton and Randy DeHoff who are not running. All seven of the State Board of Education members, including Angelika Schroeder and Jane Goff (former CEA Vice President) took a motion of support for this bill.

NOT SO FAST! If you didn’t already think teaching is a risky job this bill should convince you that it is. This bill would touch every single one of us – no matter your level of experience in the district. You, your best friend, or your colleagues down the hall could lose your jobs if Sen. Michael Johnston passes this anti-teacher, anti-union bill. Evaluations will be used to hire, fire, pay, assign, and dismiss teachers in ways that you cannot even imagine today. We must marshal our forces and get our members mobilized right now. With your help…… WE WILL KILL THIS BILL!

Here’s how YOU must work to kill this bill - To be successful in fighting SB 191, Senator Johnston’s teacher evaluation and due process bill, we need educator voices in the capitol talking with their legislators. CEA is launching Rolling Lobby Days to ensure a continuous stream of educators voicing our message. BV and Westminster EA have chosen April 20 th as our united day. However, if that date doesn’t work – here are other days: April 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29. Please contact BVEA if you are willing to go down on these days. There are still BVEA professional leave days available if a group goes downtown. It was stated the legislators are really enjoying the conversations they have had with teachers so far at the Capitol. They want to hear from educators in the schools!!