Representative Jehan Gordon has earned a reputation for listening to her constituents. In April of 2009, Rep. Gordon invited several people (teachers, parents, etc...) who are involved in the Peoria educational community to become part of her Education Advisory Committee.The group had an opportunity to meet with Rep. Gordon for an update on legislative developments in Springfield and share their thoughts about issues affecting the education community.
In the coming weeks, Rep. Gordon, who is a member of the Senate's Special Committee on Education Reform, will be taking part in hearings on the Peformance Counts Act.
The Performance Counts Act of 2010 (PCA) is a draft of proposed legislation, commissioned by Stand for Children Illinois (based in Oregon) and Advance Illinois. On December 16th and 17th, it was the central point of discussion at Education Reform Hearings at the Illinois Math and Science Academy in Aurora. The PCA appears to be extremely fast moving legislation that many believe will be voted on by the General Assembly in very early January 2011. It is a sweeping proposal addressing tenure, evaluations, dismissal, collective bargaining, and strikes.
Reportedly, Rep. Gordon received some campaign contributions from Stand for Children and on their website, she is vaguely referred to as one of nine "champions of education". Rep. Gordon, is in position to play an integral part in moving Stand for Children's agenda through the legislature.
Editorial: Illinois school reform proposals
The best way to improve education in Illinois dramatically is to attract and keep the best teachers in the classroom and more quickly and efficiently fire the worst.
That's the aim of a draft proposal — dubbed the Performance Counts Act — introduced to a special Illinois House committee last week.
The reforms would:
•Make teacher performance the main factor in layoff decisions. In many districts, teachers are laid off by seniority — last in, first out. That means good young teachers are fired instead of less effective teachers who are protected by seniority.
•Make it easier to fire ineffective teachers. Right now, the process to fire a teacher is so cumbersome that many principals don't try. This would streamline the process significantly and spare kids from the worst teachers.
•Ensure that only the best-performing teachers earn tenure. Instead of a virtually automatic tenure award after four years of service, teachers would be granted tenure only if they've been rated "proficient" or "excellent" in evaluations. That's a smart step. But it also depends on far more honest teacher evaluations, tied strongly to student performance and classroom observation.
The most controversial part of this package: curbing teachers' right to strike. The proposal would hand more power to school boards to resolve contract disputes.
Right now, teachers can strike after negotiations and mediation fail. This proposal would create a new step. If mediation fails, a three-member panel would be created — one member picked by the school board, one by the union and one by the other two members. The panel would hammer out a settlement. If either side rejected that settlement, the details of it would be made public.
But the final decision would rest with the school board. It could accept the panel's settlement or the union's offer, or impose its own settlement. The union could strike only if the school board failed to act.
That's a powerful proposal. It would invite public scrutiny of negotiations and protect teachers from dysfunctional school boards. But it would, essentially, end teacher strikes.
The House committee wrapped up hearings on these ideas last week. An Illinois Senate committee will consider them early next year. Read entire editorial here.
Editorial: Illinois school reform proposals
The best way to improve education in Illinois dramatically is to attract and keep the best teachers in the classroom and more quickly and efficiently fire the worst.
That's the aim of a draft proposal — dubbed the Performance Counts Act — introduced to a special Illinois House committee last week.
The reforms would:
•Make teacher performance the main factor in layoff decisions. In many districts, teachers are laid off by seniority — last in, first out. That means good young teachers are fired instead of less effective teachers who are protected by seniority.
•Make it easier to fire ineffective teachers. Right now, the process to fire a teacher is so cumbersome that many principals don't try. This would streamline the process significantly and spare kids from the worst teachers.
•Ensure that only the best-performing teachers earn tenure. Instead of a virtually automatic tenure award after four years of service, teachers would be granted tenure only if they've been rated "proficient" or "excellent" in evaluations. That's a smart step. But it also depends on far more honest teacher evaluations, tied strongly to student performance and classroom observation.
The most controversial part of this package: curbing teachers' right to strike. The proposal would hand more power to school boards to resolve contract disputes.
Right now, teachers can strike after negotiations and mediation fail. This proposal would create a new step. If mediation fails, a three-member panel would be created — one member picked by the school board, one by the union and one by the other two members. The panel would hammer out a settlement. If either side rejected that settlement, the details of it would be made public.
But the final decision would rest with the school board. It could accept the panel's settlement or the union's offer, or impose its own settlement. The union could strike only if the school board failed to act.
That's a powerful proposal. It would invite public scrutiny of negotiations and protect teachers from dysfunctional school boards. But it would, essentially, end teacher strikes.
The House committee wrapped up hearings on these ideas last week. An Illinois Senate committee will consider them early next year. Read entire editorial here.
7 comments:
Sounds like a great cause for the Dist 150 advocacy group to support. Who determines what they fight for?
Not so sure they would support this - but I was wondering if they would be vocal about it..
Interesting idea--not sure how I feel about it. However, how I feel about it is of very little importance. I will be interested in hearing how teachers feel about it--that is the side I will be on.
I do find it interesting that the right to strike becomes such a major issue since District 150 teachers actually went on strike only once in my 43 year career. However, I guess the right, even if not used, is important.
Also, I always am amazed at how the word "good" is so easily placed in front of "young teachers," but rarely in front of "older teachers." Has no one ever encountered a "bad" young teacher?
Do away with tenure and only one thing will count: money--keep the cheaper teachers with little experience; get rid of the expensive experienced teachers.
By now, I would hope you all realize that school boards make classroom decisions on the basis of money--quality has very, very little to do with the decisions and will continue to have less and less impact in our bad economy.
By the way, Merry Christmas to all of you--you have enriched my life this year. As to District Watch, some of you continue to have the impression that we operate as a group. We make absolutely no group decisions. We share ideas and opinions about District 150, but no one acts or speaks as a representative of those in the group.
Mostly, we try to encourage individuals (and we have no membership list) to speak at board meetings on whatever topics for which they have an interest or passion.
Now that I've had some time to think about the issue, I believe I am against these so-called reforms that would eliminate tenure, the right to strike, etc. (I am sure no one is surprised by that declaration)--nor does my opinion account for much other than it is my opinion.
First, let me make it clear that I believe Jehan is very responsive to teachers and has done an excellent job of communicating with teachers--including this retired teacher.
Emerge, you state, "Reportedly, Rep. Gordon received some campaign contributions from Stand for Children." I believe that Jehan, also, received campaign contributions from the teachers' union (PFT).
Hopefully (and I believe that will be the case), Jehan will not take a stand in favor of any group, dependent on if and how much the group donated to her campaign.
"Do away with tenure and only one thing will count: money--keep the cheaper teachers with little experience; get rid of the expensive experienced teachers."
I believe Sharon and I are becoming one and the same person. I think in these budget tight times schools will go for the quick fix to balance their budgets.
Making merit pay and employment retention decisions based on performance requires savvy administrators and principals that are properly trained in writing and communicating about such issues. I don't see cash-trapped school districts taking the time to properly instruct on such matters and monitor the overall system.
I am not in support of tenure, however, which the proposed reform does not eliminate.
Tonight's PJS article about Jehan's stand on this issue makes me believe that I was right about what to expect from Jehan. She states the money doesn't make her beholden to the group--and I think her stands sound very balanced and thoughtful.
Post a Comment