I don't disagree with anything in either of your posts, but the reality of how the disaggregation is framed leads to the sensationalistic elements in the media, the institutional resistance that is about to manifest itself, and the participant abuses that may appear. Reality is what it is and can't just be talked away.

Problem is that the county and plaintiffs publicly framed the policy as a black student issue. Had the parties been more savvy, the obvious negative consequences could have been avoided.

I'm not sure what you wanted me to acknowledge. Schools are hardly flawless, sounds like you've got a legitimate bone to pick at your school about specific procedures/teachers, and I don't believe I work there. If you feel any better, all of your issues would be annoying. I don't operate in that manner, so you have my sympathies. Regardless, none of those things should keep a parent from pushing their child to succeed in school, which is something many of us see far too often.

"Or call me at home in the evening. I am more than happy to talk to you about my students." And, in your case, that solves the entire problem right there. The question is what does one do if the parent isn't willing to talk? The bigger issue is that this has far less to do with parent/school/teacher ever having a high level of interaction, but rather it is about transmitting similar values and expectations. Were every household reinforcing the notion that the student needs to get with the program at school or there will be hell to pay at home, all kids would achieve to some level - in spite of the school. Conversely, teachers/schools need to stop wasting kids' time with nonsensical, petty rules, and meet the needs of those kids who are "spinning their wheels" (though that is mainly a byproduct of budget cuts and FCAT).

LOL. I just noticed something. Isn't a bit odd that there are two links to the same year old web article to buttress "tenure" w/in like a minute of one another..Coincidental to say the least.

I'll also add (before any private sector warriors chime in), I understand that most jobs have very little in the way of firing protections. However, one needs to think of this from a practical, systemic, macro perspective, rather than a personal..."I don't get this protection, so why should some no good teacher get it" outlook. If you actually think it is a good thing to have skilled teacher rather than warm bodies (which leaves out the GOP leadership), AND you do not want to pay very much for this potential workforce, you better have some way to draw them to the profession. I remember the linked proposal from months ago, and my view is the same as it was - annual contracts for ten years sounds reasonable to someone in the private sector, but when you couple that with a 34k starting salary and a thirty year 1.5% annual increase average, you are now narrowing the talent pool tremendously. Throw the "unique" daily conditions and you are essentially guaranteeing another decade of teacher shortage at as the norm.

Why the news media has decided to roll out the GOP propaganda terminology is beyond me. Probably laziness, with just a smidgen of political influence peddling between GOP and the current Infotainment industry (that supplanted impartial journalism that used to exist). Basically you have to ask yourself why the GOP extremists are so hell bent on taking away all protections. Easy....money, money, money. Want to guess what percent of teachers will make it to pension vestment under a state DOE run monolithic system - where nearly every teacher is on annual contract? If you guessed close to zero, you are right.

The word tenure is a legal/contractual concept whereby you are virtually untouchable by your superiors, short of criminal violation. It is a concept that has bite in some states for teachers, and was traditional in university settings. All the power resides with the employee. I bring this up because the definition and term are important. Apparently the word was used in FL up until around 1980 (don't know for sure-I was only in 5th grade) and then was replaced with PSC's - or the acronym equivalent. Under PSC's any teacher can be given notice of deficiency, put on a performance improvement/documentation plan, and let go in 90 days. It can mean they are out of the classroom immediately too. That's pretty much it. I'm summarizing slightly, but I've seen it done 4 times at my school. There is an appeal hearing provision in there for the employee at the end, but unless it's just fabricated stuff, I think it's pretty much a fait accompli at that point. All it takes is a deficiency and an administrator willing to follow the steps. It is a due process "perk" after year three. The main practical reason it exists is so if a new principal takes over in spring (as has happened 4x in my 14 years) they can't just toss competent teachers to bring in someone they work with previously at year's end. A little security from cronyism, personality conflicts, or capriciousness to make up for the low pay. Now, I have never heard the word tenure uttered by anyone in any professional setting in 14 years (honestly). It's not part of the lexicon around our county/schools (I am an immigrant on this board though). I have dealings with teachers from 2 other neighboring counties and a spouse who worked in a third, and still have not heard it until Thrasher started his war on my family 2 weeks ago. So, why now? Well to many northern transplants, "tenure" has the meaning I outlined at the beginning. It was titled the Teacher Tenure Bill as a purposeful distortion, as propaganda, as a scare tactic. It's a way to tap into the "bad" teacher fable that is running amok on these very boards. Simple as that. All I have is DUE PROCESS protection, but if I am deficient in an evaluative area tomorrow I can be tossed by year's end. Follow the steps, document the deficiency, and I'm gone. The power lies with the employer. I only have enough protection to protect me from frivolous abuse of administrative power.

The fact of this whole situation is that the status quo is indeed flawed. However SB6 will be a complete train wreck on many fronts, and likely more we haven't considered as the unintended consequences arise. Students will ultimately suffer and the current system will be retroactively envied. NO to SB6 is the only course of action. Ideally, that then opens a dialogue and new bill process for reform that includes multiple viewpoints, stakeholders, and input. I realize the financial and cultural obstacles to my prior plan, but we could certainly come up with something reasonable, even under our practical restraints. However, there CANNOT be any effective reform that benefits students when parents and educators are told they are not welcome to participate. (especially when it is literally like three zealots with agendas other than the students' experience driving the system off a cliff.)

I don't know anything about tenure in other states. All I know is that TENURE DOES NOT EXIST HERE; there are specific steps that can have teachers out in fairly short order; and the administrators hold the responsibility for that issue. NO ONE is untouchable in Florida. One just needs to read the laws and firing procedures would they like to be informed. I do imagine lawyers would love your malpractice insurance scheme...and were the compensation commensurate to the risk, I can understand the logic.

Problem, Kim, is that they know darn well there is no money. Once they get this absolute power, they can then squeeze everyone back to 30k per year until enough leave. Then they'll start certifying "teachers" w/ AA degrees, pay them 22k a year and call it a day. Don't mistake their misanthropic nature and unchecked avarice for incompetence. They know exactly what they are doing.

Now, on to your MOST important question: "but at the same time wouldn't it deter the people who are not in it for the right reason also?" No, it will not....and it will likely bring more questionable folks into the fold. Let's suppose 20% of people get into this for the "wrong" (?) reasons. They have already resigned themselves to the fact that they won't make much money, so not achieving a significant increase won't be a deterrent. Well we won't get them with salary, so they'll be gone based on test scores However, since there is no measurement as to anyone's actual effectiveness, but rather a measurement of a student performance of which the teacher is one variable - these teachers will survive or fail based on the random kids assigned to them. Over the system as a whole, under the SB6 scheme teachers of differing skill sets and motivation will have basically the same statistical chance to hit the effectiveness rating for employment. One big crap shoot based on intra-campus political maneuvering, neighborhood demography, and student interest level, more than teaching skill. So, as these conditions take root, and since pay will not be increasing (and likely decreasing for most), the better talent will leave FL - leaving the adequate as the new "good". The only ones entering the system will be those with the most minimal of qualifications and those who view it as a decent temp paycheck until they move to something else w/in 3-5 years.

Admin is the biggest problem in this myth that "bad" teachers can't be fired...there are procedures in place to do so, and to punish me for failure to follow through is is unjust. I'd also argue that the "bad" (totally ineffective, no management, poor skilled, abjectly lazy 10%) are regularly pushed out. BUT, we do such a poor job of making this a profession that is attractive, that the law of supply and demand dictates that the talent pool skews heavily toward the 'adequate'(50%) teacher -- whom many term as 'bad'. Admin needs staff, so since there are only so many applicants...well you get it. This 'adequate' teacher is the one who is well meaning, but likely delivers curriculum in a very traditional, inside the box manner. Someone we would have considered pretty solid 15, 20, 40, years ago, but the social/community/familial realities of the last decade+ have made their effectiveness much more tied to the variable of parent support and student buy in/effort. Put them with the right class culture and it smooth sailing, the wrong class culture and it could be a trainwreck. So that brings us to $$$$$. Until we decide to make this an attractive profession monetarily off the bat, we will not find a wider pool of talent from which to choose. For every person like you or me who can resign themselves to moderate pay in exchange for other benefits, there is someone else who has interest and skills that decides to go another direction in college for equally logical considerations related to economics. Were we serious about this as a society, we would start teacher pay at $50,000 per year, phase in requirements for masters degrees (related to subject) for certification, come up with a raise structure that combined annual evaluation (including test score @ 25%?) AND restructure contracts in a way that allow for a probationary period & some security (rolling 4-5 year contracts). I'd throw in retention bonuses as an option too, but to be based on years+excellent evaluation. At that point we would cast a wider net for talent. Until we do that, the pool of candidates is what it is.... SB6 does nothing of this sort because it, plus other legislative reductions of funding (much funneled to private interests), strives to shrink the overall cost of the state educational budget.

"If we can't make the teachers more responsible what is the next best alternative?" See, that's why you were easy to spot. Another false dilemma cloaked as concern. Translation of this propaganda stratagem: SB6 is the only model for making teachers responsible...if one is against it, they want teachers to run amok....everything else is a less desirable alternative.

"because I am willing to rally against SB 6 if someone can give me another plausible solution." That frames a false dilemma, as this is not a zero sum game - nor is there another option (nice manipulative stratagem, but fallacious none the less). Even absent another "solution" (to what, you don't specify) SB6 should be defeated because it is such a horrific bill in in every measure. It merits a veto.

Definitely. USDOE are very nice folks. They sent me a personal response a week ago while Cretul and the rest of the House Reps were bouncing back auto-format, propaganda as responses. Let them know how cut out of the process we are and your plans to leave for greener pastures as a result of SB6. They really don't want to toss hundreds of millions on to this tire fire in FL....so just give them a gentle, polite, reminder.

I'll bite out of my overwhelming sense of courtesy: 1. Lack of funding and education policy being set by ideologues with no educational or public school connections (for a decade) 2. Stable funding with a slight increase and local control. All right then, quid pro quo: A) Can anyone explain how any of the provisions in SB6(that actually specifically exist) meet the stated goal of getting the 'best and brightest' into the field - and it must be a concrete, practical explanation (funding, numbers, etc..)-- the GOP "it just will work" line is not a compelling to me that would be a F in my class. B) Can anyone explain to me how the assessment model is accurate, reliable, valid, and fair? Honestly my questions are more salient Nowey, as you guys already put your policy in place....we'd just like to know how it will actually work rather than hearing talking points, rants, and philosophical abstracts sold as details.

LOL. Thanks red...in fairness, I did have a little inside heads up on this part of the game and timing though.

"Could you tell me what the big fuss is about if teachers are not complaining about their pay/job security?" Nope, not if you are that far behind in the game at this point. So essentially you don't know anything about the issue at hand, yet have strong opinions on the teaching profession (most negative). I think I'll stick with my original hypothesis. As not only does it fit to a T, but I'll feel better with you as agent provocateur than actually part of a profession that requires an understanding of larger and complex issues...beyond one's self.

SB6 does nothing to address that litany of concerns outlined (and exaggerated) in Nowey's posts. In fact, it actually increases the probablity students will have under qualified or temporary teachers for most of their time in public school. Any teacher supporting SB6 as a reliable or valid assessment needs to seriously reflect upon how they assess students, as they obviously don't quite grasp the concept (and are likely doing there students a disservice). In the two weeks since this ambush/assault began, I haven't seen any post from a teacher complaining about teacher pay. That part of your diatribe is a diversion of epic proportions and is put in the post simply to paint teachers in a poor light (for whatever motive) as are several other of your generalized rants. Quite honestly, one could say you do not ever address SB6 or its provisions in any of your posts. You simply cobble together negative stereotypes about teachers while setting yourself up as some type of authority with disjointed and aggrandizing anecdotes about yourself. Is it too much to ask that you actually address the topic at hand - namely the value of SB6?

Here Ron: Start with a Constitutional Amendment: -Per student funding will not fall below $7200 - That number will be automatically increased a min. of .8% per year. -Failure to meet this requirement triggers a lifetime, retroactive 2 term limit of service in the FL Legislature for every sitting member of both houses -This provision can be suspended one budget year out of ten. Then you pass as law: -Counties must tie 25% of a teacher's eval. to individual/school fcat gains, & establish four categories of effectiveness -Counties pay scale must include both years served and evaluation rating -Starting teacher pay in all counties is 140% of the current salary for members of FL legislature. -Counties will pay additional 5% of starting pay to teachers with advanced degrees in their current subject area & NBCT (Ed. leadership excluded). They will pay 2.5% for adv. degrees not related to current subject. -The State and County will (60/40) establish an annual merit fund equal to 5% of that year's budget. Will be annual bonus incentives for: A)teaching in low performing schools or needed subject areas B)schools with the largest testing gains in the county (in addition to A+ monies) C)employees scoring 2 of 3 yrs at the highest rating (no lower than the highest tier allowed in third yr.) - Teachers in the first 3 years will be on annual contracts - They can then be placed on a 4 year contract that automatically rolls over if they have been ranked in the top two rating categories for all four years. 1 out of 4 years below the top two ratings = three years of annual contracts again. Score in the bottom 2 categories more than once = termination as option.

You are on two separate issues J. RttT isn't a way to plug the budget, nor is SB6. RttT will cost counties $$$, while SB6 is the culmination of 10 years of ideological agenda. The only thing it has to do with the budget is that 'pubs hope to cloak budget cuts (some inevitable) in "educational improvements" and push them onto the local school boards - with no political fallout to themselves.

Guess they could have the same type of accountability that Del and Tenn rolled out in their app. Doesn't really have to be scorched earth...unless one is beholden to other interests/agendas.

Yep. I've gotten the same generic, auto reply, talking points response from Cretul and three other Reps. Guess GOP only supports democracy when they feel like it.

Looks like you bummed out the 'Pub Overlords, terminator. God forbid the entire context of the comments be considered. The OSent boards mysteriously 'malfunctioned' for the 72 hours surrounding the Senate vote. Guess we may see the same thing around here. Not fascist at all. Nope, not at all.