Senate Bill 736 – The Student Success Act

I believe that the recently passed SB 736 is an attempt to covertly move our school system from a public to private endeavor. I agree that our system is out of date and overwhelmed, but I also can argue that students who came to my math class from private schools are not well schooled. Switching our system to private and charter schools does not provide appropriate incentives to help children learn. In fact, it's the opposite. If you can educate a student for $500 less and keep the difference, you’ll do it.

While the conspiracy may not hold water, the ideas laid out in the bill are not constructive at best. I would like to point out a couple of disturbing notes from this bill. If you would like to follow along, go to: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/736. Click on bill text, and look for version ER.

The following notes that half of your evaluation has to be based on student achievement.

205 1. Performance of students. At least 50 percent of a
206 performance evaluation must be based upon data and indicators of
207 student learning growth assessed annually by statewide
208 assessments or, for subjects and grade levels not measured by
209 statewide assessments, by school district assessments as
210 provided in s. 1008.22(8). ...

I do not disagree with the idea that students should learn when they are in school. However, my evaluations will be based on FCAT scores and EOC exams. If you really want to know if a student is good at something, a multiple choice standardized test is not always a good method. Also, if a student is good at math, they may do well or bomb the test if they are having a bad day or do not operate well under pressure.

How will gains be calculated? The bill does not supply this information. Lines 407-425 indicates the commissioner has to make up a formula to determine what learning gains are by June 1, 2011. What data will this formula use? The usual stuff, and this:

414 ... In the development of the formula, the
415 commissioner shall consider other factors such as a student’s
416 attendance record, disability status, or status as an English
417 language learner. ...

I think if a student doesn’t come to school, their scores will be lowered and should count less towards my evaluation. However, this leaves the commissioner the ability to make those scores count more, punishing teachers for not “inspiring” their students to come to school.

Also, if we don’t have an assessment for our art and band classes,

458 (e) For classroom teachers of courses for which the
459 district has not implemented appropriate assessments ...
462 ... student learning growth must be measured by
463 the growth in learning of the classroom teacher’s students on
464 statewide assessments, ...

This paragraph is pretty vague. An 11th grader only takes a science FCAT test that they do not need to pass to graduate and thus have no incentive to try. If an 11th grader is in band, the teacher’s evaluation could be based on the students taking a test that has no consequence in a subject area not their own. We better make these district assessments quickly!!! In fact, we have to make a district wide end of course exam for all subjects in three years.

501 (a) Measurement of the learning gains of students in all
502 subjects and grade levels other than subjects and grade levels
503 required for the state student achievement testing program is
504 the responsibility of the school districts.
505 (b) Beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, each school
506 district shall administer for each course offered in the
507 district a student assessment that measures mastery of the
508 content, as described in the state-adopted course description,
509 at the necessary level of rigor for the course. Such assessments
510 may include:
511 1. Statewide assessments.
512 2. Other standardized assessments, including nationally
513 recognized standardized assessments.
514 3. Industry certification examinations.
515 4. District-developed or district-selected end-of-course
516 assessments.

Number 1 alludes to FACT style tests. 2 and 3 refer to AP and the vocational equivalent. Number 4 will cover the majority of our high school classes. So, every class that does not have an EOC (just 3 next year) and is not AP will have to have a EOC exam developed by the district.

The bill also talks a lot about performance pay without giving many details as to what the numbers would look like. This makes sense because those need to be determined district by district. However, this included some language that is insane. Consider the following:

660 If budget constraints in any given year limit a district school
661 board’s ability to fully fund all adopted salary schedules, the
662 performance salary schedule shall not be reduced on the basis of
663 total cost or the value of individual awards in a manner that is
664 proportionally greater than reductions to any other salary
665 schedules adopted by the district.

This basically says that if the performance pay money doesn’t add up then everyone gets a pay cut across the board. So, people on the grandfathered salary may get a pay cut if the students do really well and the school can’t afford the performance pay. This is on top of the additional 3% pay cut we are getting for our pension contributions.

One of the worst parts of this bill is that all teachers hired after July 1, 2011 will never have more than a year of employment and can be let go without any reason. This provision destroys any thought of having a professional teaching force. There is so much value in developing some sense of job security.

703 (a) “Annual contract” means an employment contract for a
704 period of no longer than 1 school year which the district school
705 board may choose to award or not award without cause.
...
720 (a) Beginning July 1, 2011, each individual newly hired as
721 instructional personnel by the district school board shall be
722 awarded a probationary contract. Upon successful completion of
723 the probationary contract, the district school board may award
724 an annual contract pursuant to paragraph (c).
725 (b) Beginning July 1, 2011, an annual contract may be
726 awarded pursuant to paragraph (c) for instructional personnel
727 who have successfully completed a probationary contract with the
728 district school board and have received one or more annual
729 contracts from the district school board.

And continuing contracts are now gone…

781 (6) LIMITATION.—An individual newly hired as instructional
782 personnel by a school district in this state under this section
783 is ineligible for any contract issued under s. 1012.33.

One final point… The new evaluations are to be used to determine the retention of all teachers if there is a workforce reduction. While I don’t think sonority should be used, and this may sound like a good idea, I hope I have convinced you that the new performance measures are already broken before they have been created. Also, the other 50% of the evaluation can be very political.

1130 ... Within the program areas requiring reduction, the
1131 employee with the lowest performance evaluations must be the
1132 first to be released; the employee with the next lowest
1133 performance evaluations must be the second to be released; and
1134 reductions shall continue in like manner until the needed number
1135 of reductions has occurred. A district school board may not
1136 prioritize retention of employees based upon seniority.

When kids ask me if they should go into education, I’m now going to give them a straight answer:

“No”

The charter school and private school jobs are no better… And could be worse as well because certification is not required. If you can’t get a certificate in the state of Florida, you should not be teaching children. There is no accountability in these schools, but there are people at the top of those schools funneling campaign contributions to the people who are voting yes to laws like this.

On a final note, the recent Race to the Top funding also gives perverse incentives to states. They overpromise to the federal government to compete for RTTT funds, keep most of the money at the state level, and pass down more underfunded mandates. Florida got $700 million to help build systems to evaluate and pay teachers based on student achievement. Hendry will get less than a million, and our annual budget is over 70 million. It’s nice to get, but it is less than what we need for what they’re asking us to do.

What will we see on TV? Governors celebrating all this extra money “we” got by overpromising the most.

What will we not see? Me.

Adios,
Dave Sankey