In bold move, Colorado alters teacher tenure rules

Colorado is changing the rules for how teachers earn and keep the sweeping job protections known as tenure, linking student performance to job security despite outcry from teacher unions that have steadfastly defended the system for decades.

Many education reform advocates consider tenure to be one of the biggest obstacles to improving America's schools because it makes removing mediocre or even incompetent teachers difficult.

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.

It 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_grading_t ... cA_BtzfNdF

I know that some disagree with this. The downside is how the evaluations of the students will take place--who determines and how--if the students are improving? If it is based on grades, teachers could just give students higher grades at the end of the year and it appears that there is improvement.

If it's done by testing, then who is writing up the tests and are they 'really' indicitive of progress?

The upside could be that teachers work to teach better and more thoroughly so it theoretically could be a good thing.

(I haven't read the link above; just yammering here.)

I agree with Loping,

Performance measures should include peer reviews, and maybe other measures, not just grades.

I am more curious about the motivations for this bill in the first place, is tied to getting more money out of the Feds? Just wondering.

It is indeed tied to money. Obamas policy forced this action, as you may recall, nearly half a billion dollars (over several years I think) was diverted from Colorado institutions to those in Tenessee because the Colorado system did not support Obamas new requirements.

Having realized how much money we were going to be out - Colorado's legislators quickly went about changing law to accomodate the FED''s. Even Democrats jumped onboard - throwing the teachers union under the bus.

It's an example of how the federal government collects taxpayer money from the states and then forces them to comply with it's wishes (or lose out on the money). While I support reform of the teachers unions, I have serious problems about how Obamas policy gets forced down the chain to the states.

I actually support Obamas idea of tying student performance to teachers job security. Probably one of the very few policies he has that I do support, but it's not really JUST an Obama idea, conservatives also advocate this idea. If the conservatives had used this federal money the way Obama has - there would be whining and crying from the teachers unions to no end.

Now I'd like to see Obama (or preferably the states themselves) advocate a voucher systems and charter schools. I know Obama cut funding to the charter schools in D.C., and they were the best performong schools in the entire area. Really - I'd like to see the FEDS completely out of the education business, as I don't see it as a function of federal government at all. This is a states matter to be resolved at the local levels.

I do not support any type of union of government employees. The teachers' union should be busted and tenure should be abolished. Testing of students should be based upon standardized tests. Teachers should be paid according to how the student has progressed on those test results. Tests are a good indicator of how well a person will do in life. Sure, there are the exceptions, but we cannot make the exception the standard of the rule. And we should give vouchers so that each family can pick the best school for their children. THAT will modivate the teachers.

Thanks BearMtn, I didn't even have to check, I suspected it was the case. IMO we should ditch the dept. of ED, just have direct block grants to the states and let them handle it.

Grades are way over rated. I learned in college the technique of getting good grades. It does not necessarily mean you are smart, just a good test taker and able to memorize lists, and take note of cues from the teacher that "this will probably be on the test".

I can understand tenure in a university setting where research and creative thought is involved. You don't want researchers to be influenced by employers and worry about job security if they research or write something unpopular. I don't understand why tenure has filtered down to public schools at the high school level and lower, though.

I don't think teachers should be evaluated based on grades. Test scores make more sense, but scores vary so much based on which communities you live in. I think you need to look at scores and compare the beginning to the end of the academic year. Look to see which teachers are at least making progress with their students. Also consider peer and parent input, as well as student input, at least in the higher grades.

Maybe teachers should be tested as well (i.e. at least make sure a math teacher knows basic math)? No incompetent teacher should be guaranteed a job simply because they have tenure.

I just did the Lupus walk with someone who works for the Governor and a teacher who is retiring in 8 days and we talked about it over lunch. Both said this is the best thing that could happen to our education system. What other job or business or industry can you work for a few years and be pretty much guaranteed not to be fired no matter how poorly you do? No one should have that guarantee. It makes people complacent and lazy!

The problem with our education system has very little to do with the teacher's performence. The main problem is that our society does not allow them to do their jobs. By law, public schools must accept all students and too many of them do not give a damn. They disrupt the classes and bring down the rest of the students that want to be there. Private schools do not have this issue because they always have the option of not accepting problem students and kicking them out if they do not meet their standards.

I half expect (and would not blame them) the teachers union to strike at the beginning of this next school year.

I agree Ronbo. But where do we send the problem students, directly to prison to save time? Or send the parents instead?