The sixth meeting of the state Council for Educator Effectiveness took place Friday in the basement of the state Capitol. It’s not particularly well-attended. Some union folks, foundation types, a dedicated editor/blogger/observer.
Nary a legislator in sight. This has been par for the course, and it’s hard to say whether that’s of benefit or harm. The fewer politicians present, the better, one might say, though a few minutes spent in this room offers, in mind-numbing detail, a valuable reminder of the complexity of the task the council is undertaking.
The council has toiled in obscurity for six months now. It convened before the passage of the controversial Senate Bill 191 — which links teacher evaluations to measurable student achievement — and met through the political turmoil that accompanied the bill.
SB 191, which I supported, set up a framework. But the nitty-gritty is happening here. It’s the council’s job to define effectiveness for teachers and principals and then to spell out the difference between ineffective, effective and highly effective. It must come up with standards and suggest the measurements that should be included. It must recommend to the state Board of Education how it should implement the new evaluation system, what that evaluation system should look like and how all this should be linked to compensation, promotion, retention, removal.
And it has to do this by March.
Sit in this room for 30 minutes, watch a protracted discussion on terminology, swim through words like “deliverables” and “performance indicators,” listen to the board grapple with legislative intent and the limits of a prescriptive evaluation system in a state where districts have local control, and one thought may come to mind: There is no way they’ll make deadline.
For example, there is the discussion on whether the categories of teacher effectiveness can be expanded. Council member Kerrie Dallman, president of the Jefferson County Education Association, says she’d like “emerging” added for teachers just coming on line. “You want to give them an opportunity to develop,” she says. She’d also like “highly effective” replaced by “distinguished.”
The following ensues: ” ‘Highly effective’ is in statute. You can’t replace it.”
“It’s in our purview to define the terms — ineffective, effective and highly effective — and I think it’s our prerogative to add categories.”
“If we do three categories, can districts do four or five?”
“Are we saying ‘this is a minimum’ or ‘this is the model, and everyone has to do it this way’? I don’t think we’ve decided that.”
“I take ‘minimum’ as minimum.”
“I don’t think the legislature thought through . . .”
Laughter erupts.
Fifteen people sit on the council. They’ve been meeting once a month. They’ll now meet twice monthly and add a three-day retreat. They’re teachers, principals, school-board members, education-policy makers, a student, a parent, a business executive. Those to whom I spoke acknowledged progress has been slow.
Tracy Dorland, executive director of teacher effectiveness for Denver Public Schools, put it this way: “We have to go slow to go fast. We are talking about a paradigm shift in education in Colorado. Getting it right is critical. . . . Let’s do this in a way that is good for students and elevates the teaching profession.”
The Friday meeting takes place before the state learns it has lost out on the much-hoped-for Race to the Top education money that would have paid for some of its reforms. The loss has some calling for a re-examination or repeal of SB 191. I didn’t get the sense that anyone on this council would support repeal. That train has left the station. The work, they say, has value and will continue.
But the council does share some of the same questions Race to the Top reviewers had about compliance in a local-control state. It’s wrestling with how far the state can reach into local school districts.
“I think we can say, ‘You have to use data,’ but I don’t think we can say, ‘This is the data you have to use,’ ” council co-chair Matt Smith said during Friday’s meeting.
“So, we just set a minimum and they take it from there?” a council member asked. “How are we going to find the balance so we don’t end up with something no one pays attention to but that doesn’t tie the hands of districts?” asked another.
Some on the council have been worried for months about the March deadline. Other members say it is attainable, aggressive and necessary.
As for the big picture, Smith tells me, the council’s work is another step toward statewide educational transformation, one that seeks to give opportunity to all students, poor or not, rural and urban.
“If it allows a continuance of the status quo,” he says, “then we’ve failed.”
Tina Griego writes Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Reach her at 303-954-2699 or tgriego@denverpost.com.
