Senate Bill 6 / House Bill 7189: Notes from personal meetings and pre-K-12 committee

On Thursday, March 25, I was present during the first two and a half hours of the Pre-K-12 Committee debate of HB 7189. Unfortunately I had to leave before I was called to speak, and obviously also before the bill passed the committee, though from what I have heard and read, it was pushed through despite a great many speakers who had traveled from all over the state not having a chance to speak, and despite not having finished examining all the proposed amendments.

What I observed during the first two and a half hours was a very divisive partisan struggle. The Democrats, particularly Rep. Mia Jones (D-Jacksonville), Rep. Martin Kiar (D-Parkland) and Rep. Dwight Bullard (D-Miami), had crafted a number of amendments that could have helped mitigate some of the damage to public education and especially to the recruitment and retention of qualified teachers. These amendments included ones that would make advanced degrees relevant to salaries (SB 6/HB 7189 nullifies the financial benefits to teachers of holding advanced degrees); that would continue to provide financial benefits for National Board Certified teacher (another casualty of SB 6/HB 7189); that would prevent teachers transitioning between schools from losing certification based on standardized test scores; that would allow new teachers to earn tenure though it would hinge on performance (the current bill eliminates tenure for all new teachers, putting all of them on annual contracts ad infinitum); that would ensure that the as-yet unwritten and unbudgeted end-of-course exams would include a pre-test so that evaluations could be made based on learning gains rather than a simple pass/fail rate; that teachers would be guaranteed to earn at least the national average. Each of these amendments was voted down along straight party lines, 10-5 (10 Republicans to 5 Democrats).

A few interesting arguments made during the debate of the amendments: Rep. Will Weatherford (R-Wesley Chapel) argued that there was no reason teachers should necessarily be compensated for advanced degrees, because in an insurance agency, an insurance agent would not be paid more for having a higher degree. His pay would depend on how much insurance he sold. This comment scarcely deserves comment; that one would draw a parallel between a sales job functioning on commission and education is flatly absurd. His point seemed to be that if the advanced degree were truly of some benefit to the students and the educational process, that that would show up on the tests according to which the teachers would be paid. I could easily refute this argument from a very personal perspective. I hold a Master degree in French literature. A teacher with only a Bachelor could easily produce the same results on a standardized French I test that was crafted according to the textbook, because this is a written test, most likely testing only the reading and grammatical skills of the student in the target language. Does this mean that my MA does not make me a better teacher? I would certainly argue that it does. For one thing, my accent improved dramatically throughout graduate school, as all of my courses were in French, I became friends with a number of French exchange students in my school, I was teaching elementary courses in French at the time, and it afforded me the opportunity to spend a year in France through an exchange program with my graduate school. My improved accent helps the students with listening comprehension and their own speaking skills--two things not tested on a standardized test. Those same experiences also gave me a great deal of cultural insight, which I share with my students on a regular basis--one of the most important aspects of learning another language. Furthermore, studying French literature in depth and from so many different periods has given me a great knowledge bank that has aided me in choosing appropriate texts to have my students at different levels read and respond to. All of these things make my class more engaging and richer, yet none of them would necessarily show up in a student's standardized test scores. Does this mean that my Master is worthless as far as my teaching skills or my students' educational experience goes--just because it would not necessarily increase their score on a single written test? With all due respect, Rep. Weatherford obviously does not understand very much about education, to make such a comparison. Anyone who understands education understands its complexities and nuances, and can plainly see that it has nothing in common with selling insurance.

Florida SB 6: learning gains impossible to measure
Posted by: High School Teach on 3/27/10

We are assured by the proponents of SB 6 that we will be
evaluated on student learning "gains", and that we will not
be at a disadvantage if we have low-level students in our
class. Teachers will just be evaluated on their
students' "gains" compared to students' previous year's
scores. Teacher evaluations will not be based on whether
their students scored 100's on the exam, but rather whether
their students showed improvment or made "gains" from last
year. We are also told that student learning "gains" will
be measured by using end of course exams.

If I teach 9th grade Biology, and am evaluated on my
students' learning gains as demonstrated on an end of
course exam, then there must have been an 8th grade
Biology class to base the gains on. If I teach 10th grade
Geometry, there must be a 9th grade Geometry class. If I
teach 11th grade World History, there must be a 10th grade
World History class, and so on, or the whole system of
measuring learning "gains" collapses.

Not only must there have been a previous lower-level
Psychology class the year before, in order to evaluate the
teacher of this year's Psych. class on "gains", but all
students taking Psych. this year must have taken the lower-
level class last year. Otherwise, Mr. Thrasher and SB 6
proponents, it is impossible to accurately measure student
learning gains!

Mike

Posted on 3/27/10


I do not think they actually seek improvement. I think they
want to rig the process to support their goal of shifting
school money into private hands. Knowing this makes it much
easier to understand all the innaccuracy and misuse of data.
This is political corruption on parade.

Posted by: ElemESOL on 3/27/10

I agree that the goal is to get rid of teachers and unions, thus
reducing pay and pensions (which means more tax breaks!) and win
political points with the public (who seem to think most
teachers are lazy bums just sitting around waiting for summer
break).

I'm sickened by what's happening. The republicans want the
middle class and government services destroyed. I never used to
be so radical left-wing, but I've seen the republicans do
nothing positive for the middle class and public schools at all.

Posted by: Teech on 3/27/10

We have no end of course exams in elementary...how will they
measure our gains? Gifted kids make less gains than low level
kids...who will want to teach them? ESE kids make gains
slowly...who will want to teach them? ELL kids make gains
slowly...who will want to teach them. In K-2 elementary we
give our own students the FAIR to determine reading
gains...what will stop teachers from making sure the students
make gains?

Posted by: IAgree on 3/28/10

I teach 1st grade. There are those teachers who misread the
instructions on FAIR, etc. So if we have someone else
administer the tests, I fear some of the younger students will
freeze up and scores won't be as high as they could be.

Also, there is NO way a school could find the staff needed to
have someone other than a teacher administer these tests. There
are not enough parapros or administrators to go around.

Posted by: conservativeteacher on 3/28/10

Surely we must look beyond party lines. Top leaders of both
parties (in several states) believe that teachers should be
evaluated by student learning gains. Have you ever listened to
the President speak about education? Many notable far left
figures also believe and state that teachers are completely
responsible for the success or failure of students. Everyone,
who has never been in a classroom, seems to think that the
problems of public education are because of teachers that do not
do enough.

As teachers, we know better. We understand about populations
that do not grow as much or as fast as others. We know about
truancy issues, behavior problems, disrespect and students who
have no desire to learn.

We know that everything is not so black and white. This is not
like a factory job where you can simply be judged on how much you
produce (because everyone starts off with equal conditions).

Although some may argue that all teachers aren't created equally
(and should be paid accordingly)they also need to know that all
students aren't equal either (I mean in reading level, math
skills, behavior and motivation).

There is simply no fair way to handle this. Even if you take
gains from beginning and end of course exams, some students
simply do not have support and do not grow as much as fast, no
matter what teacher they have. Some students will grow even with
a teacher who is not exactly the greatest. So how do you handle
this?

Posted by: Jill on 3/28/10

On a hot and humid day, Jeb Bush brings four experienced teachers to
the race track. He gives one a T.B. the next a Quarter Horse, the
next a pony the next a mule. He says all your mounts are healthy,
this race will be one mile and an eighth. You will be evaluated on
your performance in the race. GO! That is what is going to be done.