Christie proposes education reform bills that would eliminate current tenure system for teachers.

This entire post is reprinted from NJ.com:

Gov. Chris Christie sent a package of education reform bills to the Legislature Wednesday that would eliminate tenure as teachers know it and offer job protection only to those who consistently show a high level of performance based on new statewide evaluation system.

Under the tenure proposal, teachers would be given one of four ratings — highly effective, effective, partially effective or ineffective — based equally on student performance and classroom observations. Acting Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf first unveiled the evaluation system during an address at Princeton University in February.
Teachers who receive the two highest ratings three years in a row would be eligible for tenure and merit pay, at their district’s discretion. Educators rated partially effective for two consecutive years or ineffective for one year — even if they have previously been highly rated — would lose tenure and could be fired.

"We want tenure to become something good teachers earn," said Christie, who has been advocating education reform for months. "It will not protect bad teachers who stay in front of the classroom.

"What we want is the most effective teachers at the front of every classroom regardless of seniority. Teachers who are effective are not worried about losing their jobs."

Under the current system, most teachers receive tenure after three years and one day on the job. The state has revoked tenure from just 17 teachers over the past 10 years. The process can drag out for years and be very costly to districts.

The tenure proposal is one of seven education reform bills Christie said he hopes will move through the Democrat-controlled Legislature quickly and be implemented by the 2012-13 school year.

Other proposals include:

• Ending the practice known as "last in, first out," which requires districts to lay off less experienced teachers first.

• Promoting what’s known as "mutual consent," which requires principals and teachers to agree on teachers’ assignments to schools.

• Offering bonuses to teachers who work in high needs districts and difficult to staff subject areas like math or science.

• Placing a 30-day deadline on tenure revocation decisions.

• Allowing school districts to opt out of the civil service system.

None of the bills has a sponsor, leaving some legislators questioning the likelihood they will move forward at all.
Tom Hester Jr., a spokesman for the Assembly Democrats, said the caucus would review the bills and may introduce competing legislation.

Assembly Education Committee Chairman Patrick Diegnan (D-Middlesex) said he does not support any of the measures, as proposed, and would likely vote against them if they came before his committee.

"Everyone in education agrees that there are no reliable evaluation tools to accomplish what the governor continues to say should be the standard for hiring and retaining teachers," Diegnan said. "Test scores have been tried across the country and consistently produce unreliable results."

Steve Wollmer, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, said an evaluation system might drive performance in the corporate world, but won’t in the state’s public schools.

"You should not use standardized test scores to make high stakes personnel decisions," said Wollmer, whose union has consistently battled the governor over education reform. "There are too many factors that affect student test scores that teachers cannot control."

Adam Bauer, a spokesman for the Senate Republicans, said it is "highly likely" the bills will garner support — and sponsors — from the Republican caucus, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. (R-Union), who supports the governor’s education reform agenda.

"(Sen. Kean) looks forward to continuing to work with the administration on their shared commitment to saving kids from failing schools and measuring educational success based on outcomes," Bauer said.

Kean could not be reached for comment.

Lynne Strickland, executive director of the Garden State Coalition of Schools, a group of about 100 suburban districts, said Christie’s proposals will prompt "a real dialogue and conversation" about education reform in New Jersey.

She said a number of "stumbling blocks" from teachers’ perspectives, including the proposed changes to teacher compensation and the evaluation process based on assessment.

"The details in the legislation are going to be dramatically important," Strickland said. "That’s why it’s clear this is going to be hashed out. It should be, because this is significant change."

Click here to read original story and accompanying video and reader comments (always one of my favorite parts of any story!).

Governor Christie and Education Commissioner Cerf unveil NJ tenure reform proposal.

I don't have time right now to write a full reporting of the Governor's proposals announced today, but I wanted you to know about them ASAP. Thus, the following is reprinted from the blog New Jersey Left Behind. I'll share my own thoughts shortly:

This afternoon Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf gave a briefing on the Christie Administration’s five-part tenure reform proposal. Legislative language will be released in two weeks. Here’s the skinny; I’ll fill in the details tomorrow.

1) Teacher Evaluations: currently teacher evaluations are subject to collective bargaining in local districts. According to the proposal, the Department of Education will craft a state-wide evaluation form that bases 50% of a teacher’s rating on student growth (measured by standardized tests) and 50% on best practices. This new instrument will not be subject to negotiations between local unions and school districts. Other tenured employees – principals, child study team members, custodians, secretaries – will be unaffected by this legislation.

2) Tenure: teachers will be judged to be highly effective, effective, partially effective, or ineffective. These measurements will be wholly based on student learning. A teacher will be awarded tenure after three consecutive years of effective teaching. If a previously-tenured teacher amasses two consecutive years of ineffective ratings, he or she will revert to non-tenure status.

3) Mutual Consent: currently teachers can be placed in a school regardless of whether the building principal considers that teacher to be effective. The proposed legislation eliminates that practice. If a school within a district closes or is replaced, both the teacher and principals must mutually agree on a teacher’s placement within that school. If either party rejects the placement, then the teacher retains employment rights within the district for a full year and the district must assist the teacher in placement. If, however, the teacher is still not placed within a year then he or she will go on unpaid leave.

4) “Last In, First Out” (LIFO): under current law, when a district lays off teachers due to shrinking enrollment or funds then seniority dictates the order of job loss and it is illegal to consider teacher effectiveness. This proposal mandates that districts take into account teacher effectiveness when deciding on lay-offs.

5) Compensation: all districts base teacher compensation on years served and degrees earned. This new proposal dictates that the primary factor in salary is student growth. Teachers would also receive higher salaries by teaching in high-needs districts, teaching in hard-to-staff disciplines (math, science, special education), and by graduating from a teaching college with proven methods that advance student learning.

I know I said I'd share my opinions soon, and I'd like to give a more thoughtful response, but off the bat I can report that while I'm all for demanding quality from our teachers, I'm troubled by the emphasis on standardized tests and "student growth" as such a primary way to measure teacher effectiveness. More on the pitfalls of that to come...

"Schools don’t fail in Glen Rock, Ridgewood and Mendham for a reason and it has nothing to do with tenure."

I liked today's column from Alfred Doblin in the Bergen Record -- it's a good response to Governor Christie's Town Hall meeting last week in Paramus.

Reprinting Doblin's column here (AKA, no time to write tonight!):

Doblin: Put teachers on the table, not in the trash
GOVERNOR CHRISTIE came to Paramus last week and, like anyone coming to Paramus, he came to shop. But the governor was not shopping for something; he came to shop his ideas for education reform.

At a Thursday town hall meeting he said, “When you have schools like the 200 chronically failing schools in New Jersey with 104,000 students in them that have been judged to be chronically failing, we’re going to close them and start over.”

Starting over means not just closing these schools, but doing away with teacher tenure and replacing it with merit pay attached to student performance. It also means opening more charter schools. Blocking the way is the New Jersey Education Association, according to Christie. The NJEA is the Big Bad Wolf.

Maybe there is some truth to that, but there isn’t just one wolf bearing its teeth on the path to grandma’s high-property-taxed house. Let’s face it: Chris Christie isn’t Little Red Riding Hood.

Two hundred failing schools is unacceptable. But the state Department of Education’s website lists a total of 2,485 schools in New Jersey. That means less than 10 percent are failing. It would seem that the majority of schools, and the teachers inside them, are doing rather well. No doubt, students in failing schools can take little solace in that.

I agree 100 percent with the governor about tenure. I do not believe in guaranteed jobs for life. I do not accept the notion that the current form of tenure allows for the removal of poor-performing teachers. But eliminating tenure without having a viable alternative that does not leave teachers vulnerable to the whims of angry parents and school board members with agendas is equally unacceptable.

What I see as problematic in all the school-reform talk is that none of it acknowledges that while the state has a constitutional obligation to provide a thorough and efficient education, students do not have a constitutional obligation to be willing participants. They can be forced to show up, but they cannot be forced to learn.

Teachers can motivate many students. Great teachers can work some miracles. But there are many factors from home life to language skills to neighborhood safety that affect how a child learns. Public schools are required to take in everybody.

Charter schools have not been shown to be universally better than public schools. Parents who push for their children to be in a charter school are equally likely to push for their children in a public school. One pushing parent is worth more than a room full of pushing Christies.

And I am sick and tired of hearing about the Robert Treat Academy in Newark. The charter school is by all accounts a very fine institution. But it also is the creation of one of the most powerful political figures in New Jersey, Stephen Adubato. Politicians visit it like devout Catholics visit Lourdes. Enough already.

The governor can close every poor performing school in New Jersey tomorrow and replace them with a charter school and there will still be failing schools because if those schools are required to teach everybody, they will have some students who will not get with the program. And if these charter schools toss out the students who do not meet their schools’ criteria, where do these students land?

There is a reason – a reason more complex than tenure – for failing schools. Schools don’t fail in Glen Rock, Ridgewood and Mendham for a reason and it has nothing to do with tenure. It’s stability. It’s parents. It’s safety. It’s many, many things.

The leadership of the NJEA remains a good target because it has been inflexible. It has put its interests ahead of it members. But less than 10 percent of the schools in New Jersey are chronically failing. If teachers, and yes, the NJEA, are to blame for 200 failing schools, they are also responsible for 2,285 schools that are succeeding.

Christie should take credit for raising issues that no public official has dared touch. Everything about education should be on the table – tenure, salaries, pensions, class sizes, federal and state mandates, charter schools – put them all on the table.

I’m sure the audience in Paramus was appreciative of the governor’s tough talk. The governor is passionate and, from my experience with him, it’s real. It’s not generated for the cameras or the polls. He is who he is.

He is a product of public schools. And he needs to remember that. Teachers and their contracts should be on the table; they should not be in the trash.

Alfred P. Doblin is the editorial page editor of The Record. Contact him at doblin@northjersey.com. Follow AlfredPDoblin on Twitter.

Why it may not be valid to use student test scores to evaluate teachers.

As New Jersey's Governor and Education Commissioner talk about tying teacher performance to compensation, and making some form of "merit pay" part of the reforms outlined in New Jersey's Race To The Top Application, I wanted to share this, from Diane Ravitch’s Bridging Differences blog on Education Week — a reasonable explanation for why it’s not valid to use student test scores in teacher evaluation:

I received an email from Dr. Harry Frank, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Michigan who has written textbooks about testing and measurement. Dr. Frank wrote that the first principle for valid assessment is that “no assessment can be used at the same time for both counseling and for administrative decisions (retention, increment, tenure, promotion). … All this does is promote cheating and teaching to the exam. … This principle is so basic that it’s often covered in the very first chapter of introductory texts on workplace performance evaluation.” [The full text of Dr. Frank's email is posted on my Web site, www.dianeravitch.com, in a section called "comments."] I asked Dr. Frank to explain the word “counseling,” and he said that this meant “feedback on performance for purposes of skills development,” what we might think of as the diagnostic use of an assessment. Dr. Frank also added: “Assessments should be a counseling resource, not a source of extrinsic motivation, i.e., rewards and punishments for teachers, administrators, and school districts.”

Put simply, tests and assessments should inform teachers about student progress and their own teaching, i.e., what can be learned from the test results. But it is inappropriate to use the same test results to hand out bonuses and punishments, promotions and tenure.

Click here to read the full post on Education Week.

A brief history of tenure

For those who often inquire about tenure, I did run across this interesting article from Time magazine a few months ago. Click below:

A Brief History of Tenure

I also learned that New Jersey was the first state to pass a teacher tenure law, in 1909. (New York Times, 10/10/76).

Ridgewood News: All school news, all the time

Friday's Ridgewood News was a Board of Education newsfest, wasn't it? Is there nothing else going on in town? (OK, there were a few things about the decline of downtown...and a Valley story...and of course some great Jamboree coverage!)

Let's review the school news in Friday's (2/5/10) paper, shall we?

Page 1: Teacher could lose her tenure.
For the first time in many years, tenure charges have been filed against a Ridgewood teacher. I can agree with the quote from Manager of Human Resources Gary Hall: this was not taken lightly. The process is ongoing, so there's not much I can add to the story that was in the paper. Plus, since it's a personnel issue, I'm wary of saying something that would compromise confidentiality...A parent asked me why we didn't announce this before now, seeing as it's February and the charges were first filed in September. As I mentioned to that parent, it's true that much of this is public information, and as you know I'm always looking for ways to increase our transparency. However, it is my personal opinion that no one would be served by proactively making a big public deal out of this. The District will of course respond to questions from the media and elsewhere (and if you have further questions, I recommend you contact Dr. Fishbein directly), but for now, I can say we're following the legal steps to achieve the goal that we think is best for the students of Ridgewood.

Page 2: Residents: Vandalism indefensible.
This is the story about the guy (or gal?) who keeps cutting a hole in the fence between BF Middle School and Steilen Ave. I've got news for you, it's not just the "residents" who find this indefensible. I'm pretty sick of it. The District has repaired the fence over and over. The neighbors have confronted the alleged perpetrator. The police have been notified and presumably are "investigating." But enough already! This person is destroying others' property. And, to make it even worse, his actions are putting children in danger because, every time the hole is cut, kids use it as a shortcut to and from school, causing them to cross two driveways on private property. The adjacent neighbor is right to be frightened that someday he may hit a child who emerges from the fence into his driveway. I'd like to see the fence repaired and then a Law & Order-style sting operation...a van with surveillance equipment, late night stake out...infrared cameras...maybe that creepy Dateline reporter doing the voiceover...and then gotcha!

Page 5: No more free ride on garbage truck for district.
(I like how the newspaper has it under a kicker headline "Budget Woes," like it's a regular feature...Oh, wait, I guess it is.) So, like in many municipalities*, the Village has been picking up our schools' garbage for years, decades, no one knows how long. Now, due to their own budget woes, they want to charge us, somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000+ per year. Obviously, with the millions of dollars we already have to cut for our 2010-11 budget, we can't just absorb another $100,000 expense. So, we'll go out to bid and my prediction is we'll get much more favorable quotes elsewhere. (*Note: I'm researching which other municipalities do and don't charge to pick-up their schools' garbage. More to come...)

I truly don't understand the nonsensical quote from Village Manager Gabbert at the end of the article. He said, " the impact on Village taxpayers will be insignificant if the BOE utilizes the Village sanitation services. If the BOE uses private scavenger services, then the increased expense will be reflected in the BOE budget." Huh? Guess what Mr. Gabbert. If we use Village services or another service, either way, the increased expense will hit our budget. Thanks for your odd analysis, but we'll be shopping around for the best price.

Page 5: School tax increase set at 4% cap.
I already wrote about this the day after our last BOE meeting. Click here to read my post. I can say that I noted the newspaper's lead stated, "In a rare show of discord, the [BOE] voted 3-2 on Monday to keep next year's budget'at cap.'" It's true that the public doesn't often see Board of Ed members disagree. I've said in the past that I think we should disagree a little more in public, if just to boost our credibility. So, I think it was good. The fact is, this budget situation is ugly and painful and it's not going to be easy, no matter what. None of us -- not newbies like me and not veterans like Mrs. Brogan -- has been in this situation before. The dire circumstances and the high stakes are bound to put us at odds again, as we work through the process.

Whew...time to put last week's paper to bed and move forward. Tomorrow I've got some news from Trenton. For now...It's a new week! It's the week before February break! Onward!

Tenure talk

So, what’s all this talk about the Board of Education awarding tenure or not awarding tenure? If I may, I’d like to explain a little bit how the process works. This is not a comprehensive guide...just a little of what I’ve learned and what I’d like to share in light of some of the recent conversations and public comments.

Tenure is a state law. The timing of tenure – when staff receive it – is part of the law. The schedule is set – it is not negotiable, it cannot be delayed nor can it be speeded up or awarded early.

When a staff member is employed for three years, if they are renewed for the fourth year, then they automatically receive tenure. There is no decision to award or not award tenure – there is only the decision to renew the employee for the fourth year. If they are renewed: tenure.

If a teacher achieves tenure, and then later is promoted to an administrative position, then the timing for the awarding of tenure for the new position is after two years in that position.

The decision to renew a staff member is made by the Superintendent, following a process of annual reviews and observations made by the Superintendent, the principal and other staff (for example department supervisor). The Superintendent recommends which staff to renew, and the Board of Ed votes on the recommendation. There is never a vote to approve or award tenure per se (although obviously that renewal vote at the three-year mark is a de facto tenure approval).

Where does public or parent input come in to the process?
The hope and assumption is that parents will give input to the principal or Superintendent at any and all times, throughout a teacher or administrator’s service. If you’re happy with a teacher’s performance, please call or write, so the information can be noted and referred to as the staff person is evaluated. If you’re not happy with a teacher’s or administrator’s performance, please speak up to the Superintendent or principal. Why wait? Your input and opinions are welcome, and following the chain of command is the way to get results. If you do not receive satisfaction after following the chain, then the issue may come before the Board. The Board must not discuss the issue prior, in order to remain neutral should the issue come before us.

What does not happen, by law, is any sort of public hearing where parents can specifically weigh-in on whether a staff person should be re-hired or renewed.

Another important fact: the Board legally can't discuss staff members' performance in any way that would identify the employee, for example by name or as for example "the Spanish teacher at __ School," unless the employee has been notified in advance, has been given the option to have the meeting in public, and has agreed.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify some of the tenure talk. At last Monday's meeting, there was a list of staff which the Board approved for renewal for 09-10. I believe that list is included as part of the agenda.

Free speech at Board of Ed meetings.

At tonight's Board of Ed meeting, there were a lot of people in the audience (yay!), but because we had been informed that there would be lots of public comment, Mr. Vallerini, (who, by the way, was re-elected as President of the Board for the 09-10 school year), read a statement prior to the public comment portion of the meeting. During those public comments, all of which (I think) addressed the "awarding" of tenure to a particular teacher, one person took the mic to criticize Mr. Vallerini's statement, as he felt the Board was trying to limit free speech.

[I don't have the text of the statement...maybe I'll try to watch the meeting webcast and transcribe it.]

Anyway, first, let me say I'm a big free speech proponent. The statement Mr. Vallerini read was recommended by our lawyer and is primarily to serve three purposes: 1) To explain why Board members don't respond to comments about staff, because it is illegal for us to do so; 2) To inform speakers that they speak at their own risk and open themselves up to defamation issues; 3) To inform that Board policy #1120 says: "Board meetings are not the appropriate forum for the public criticism of individual staff members and such comments will not be entertained."

Now, that policy may be wrong. It may be overly controlling. It may go against the spirit of free speech laws. But the fact that it's in the district policy manual means we are required by law to follow it. If we wanted to revise it, that's another issue.

I can certainly see the Board's (whichever Board first wrote the policy) desire to support its staff and protect them from public attacks (in fact, legislation requires Board members to swear to "support and protect school personnel in proper performance of their duties")...I can see the district's desire to not provide a forum (and share any potential liability) for defamatory speech...but I too am put-off by the overly-protective tone. I'm curious as to why it exists. While I think there are more productive forums for criticism of staff, the American tradition of free and public discourse is important.

(School board trivia: did you know that public comments at Board of Ed meetings are not mandatory according to law? It's my understanding that there is no legal requirement that we allow public comment. I'm guessing -- and obviously I'm no lawyer -- that the Board's ability to regulate public comments is related to this fact.)

Update 3/25/11: I was told by a representative of the New Jersey School Boards Association, back in 2009 when this post first appeared, that public comment was not required by law at BOE meetings. I have since (yesterday) been informed by the Board's attorney that some form of public comment is required, although the amount of time given and the format are up to the Board.