It's a tough time for our schools. You might think Gov. Sonny Perdue and his fellow Republicans in the legislature would be working overtime to find some way to help with the financial crunch on school systems.
Apparently, the governor figures the way to do this is by going through the backdoor to require that teacher evaluations be tied to student achievement after his pay-for-performance bill died.
The new move came to light Thursday with news reports that the House Rules Committee passed Senate Bill 251 after it had been amended two days earlier by the House Education Committee to include the performance evaluation without overtly linking it to pay.
SB 251 as it passed the Senate related to dual enrollment programs and funding for charter schools. It morphed into something entirely different.
The amended bill says:
"No later than July 1, 2011, the State Board of Education, in consultation with the Office of Student Achievement, shall establish statewide common evaluation instruments that take student achievement into consideration when assessing teachers, assistant principals, and principals. The state board may take into consideration one or more of the factors enumerated in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this Code section and may consider any other factors such as peer review, student academic growth as defined by the State Board of Education, and parental input that it deems relevant, when establishing the evaluation instruments."
Paragraph (2) of subsection (b) says the annual teacher evaluations "shall at a minimum take into consideration" a list of things - starting with: "(1)(A) The role of the teacher in meeting the school's student achievement goals."
Note that the amendment gives the state school board sweeping authority to consider any factors it chooses including "student academic growth as defined" by the board.
The performance-based evaluation is one of the benchmarks for states that are trying to win the Obama administration's $4 billion education sweepstakes known as Race to the Top. Georgia came in third in the first round when it was looking for more than $400 million in the "game," as one lawmaker called it.
But Perdue and minions are playing the wrong game when they use the backdoor by amending an unrelated bill. This is the kind of stuff you expect to see in Washington, not in Atlanta from a Republican administration.
Granted, the federal handout is like a life raft to states trying to stay afloat in this tough recession. But the governor's legislative maneuver cannot be justified on such a basis.
If his original bill tying teacher pay, in part, to student achievement could not pass on its merits - and it could not - then this backdoor bill should be voted down if it gets to the House floor.
dmckee9613@aol.com
Follow us on Twitter!
I'm also concerned about the focus, in the comment, on what pay the teacher may NOT get. What of the education our children have not been receiving, year after year?
Pay for performance is appropriate. Teachers that excel should be clearly rewarded, teachers that do not excel should be incented to step-up their game, or step-out. You demand this same construct all around you.
This optimizes our children's development, rather than optimizing other concerns. It is an accountability we owe to our children, and their futures.
As a parent I have very little empirical insight into which teachers are better. I just see my taxes deducted from my paycheck. With more empirical measures - I can make more assured decisions about my children's public education, and feel good about the taxes I am paying. Right now I'm not so sure I feel good about how my education tax dollars are being used.
Also, does this mean those teachers who went the extra mile, spent numerous hours and time away from their families to get higher degrees? Do they now lose that pay? That's like asking a doctor, who went to school for ten years, to make what a nurse makes. That's ridiculous!
Last, why not pay all those people up top a little less (seven superintendents is equilivant to how many teachers?). Most of them have the same degree as a teacher.
I differ. The whole, barely mentioned, issue should be whether or not pay, or retention, of teachers based on performance evaluations should be authorized by state law. You only allude to the issue with a cursory subordinate phrase, "and it could not" be passed on its merits.
That's where I differ. There is a desperate need to evaluate and reward effective teacher performance and to authorize performance-based evaluation criteria required to do it. The concept has all the merit in the world and is going to be fundamental to salvaging the wreckage that is the public school system.
If your objection is, as written, based on a criticism of the legislative procedure, then everything done in Washington for the past year and a half needs to be undone. OK, no argument here.
But if you think the idea of performance evaluation for educators is bad, you need to make the argument, which you did not do here.