For some republicans tenure for public school teachers is ideological blasphemy. Representative Scott Dieckhaus (r) sponsored HB 2463 which appears to replace public school teacher tenure with a curious mix of legislative micromanaging.
HB 2463 Establishes the “Teacher Continuing Contract Act”
Sponsor: Dieckhaus, Scott (109) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010
CoSponsor: Nieves, Brian D. (98) ……….etal. LR Number: 5441L.03I
Last Action: 04/06/2010 – Read Second Time (H)
HB2463
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar
For instance, this (from the current statute):
….160.045. 1. Each public school shall develop standards for teaching no later than June 30, 2010. The standards shall be applicable to all public schools, including public charter schools operated by the board of a school district.
2. Teaching standards include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Students actively participate and are successful in the learning process;
(2) Various forms of assessment are used to monitor and manage student learning;
(3) The teacher is prepared and knowledgeable of the content and effectively maintains students’ on-task behavior;
(4) The teacher uses professional communication and interaction with the school community;
(5) The teacher keeps current on instructional knowledge and seeks and explores changes in teaching behaviors that will improve student performance; and
(6) The teacher acts as a responsible professional in the overall mission of the school.
3. The department may provide assistance to public schools in developing these standards upon request….
Is replaced with this:
….160.045. 1. Each public school shall develop standards for teaching no later than June 30, 2010. The standards shall be applicable to all public schools, including public charter schools operated by the board of a school district.
2. Teaching standards for purposes of teacher evaluation under section 168.1026 shall be the Teacher Advancement Program standards contained in the “framework for teaching” rubric as developed by Charlotte Danielson…..
Who died and made Charlotte Danielson God? Shush. Nobody tell the folks who advocate for local control of their schools.
You’ve got to love this little piece of micromanagement:
….168.1026. 1. The board of education of each school district shall maintain records showing periods of service, dates of appointment, and other necessary information for the enforcement of sections 168.1000 to 168.1030.
2. In addition, the board of education of each school district shall cause a comprehensive, performance-based evaluation for each teacher employed by the district.
3. All teachers shall be evaluated regularly and shall be evaluated twice annually in the final year of their continuing contract by a qualified administrator, who may be an employee of another accredited district. Advance notice of evaluations shall not be given. All evaluations shall be on a scale of 88, based on the four achievement levels of the twenty-two standards adopted in section 160.045 so that scores are comparable. No more than sixty percent of a building’s teachers shall receive a score in the top two quartiles combined…..
[emphasis added]
Because inflexible quotas always work out for the best when you believe that a significant number of public school teachers are incompetent. If there’s only one teacher in a building does King Solomon have to get involved? Just asking.
There’s also an interesting clause at the tail end of the bill:
….168.1030. No teacher shall take part in the management of the campaign for the election or defeat of members of a board of education by which he or she is employed. Any teacher who violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to termination of his or her employment by the district with the right of a hearing as heretofore provided.
[emphasis added]
Really? We want to restrict some individuals’ ability to fully participate in the civic life of their community?
The bill is co-sponsored by some of the usual suspects.
I had an opportunity to interact with Scott Dieckhaus a few months ago in regard to some environmental issues. He does not “believe in” climate change. He and I exchanged emails with attached articles for a few weeks. His sources were from the same right wing, anti-science newsletter that produces fake reports on a whole variety of topics. This is one of my missives to him.
Rep. Dieckhaus,
I agree that Wikipedia is not the final authority on any particular issue because it is an open online repository of information posted by anyone with a computer and IPS. But because it is so open to anyone anywhere in the world, it contains articles and commentaries by people of all political persuasions, and, therefore, does not have a foundational bias or agenda.
The link you sent me was interesting, so I clicked on some of the information sources contained in it and looked up the American Policy Roundtable and Heartland Institute. These groups are unabashedly biased and definitely have an agenda.
The mission of Heartland Institute from its website states: “Heartland’s mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.”
Heartland has a long history of financial ties to tobacco companies.
“Heartland also currently lists “Tobacco” as being one of its seven priority topic areas. In an essay — titled “Tobacco and Freedom” — Heartland’s senior fellow – legal affairs, Maureen Martin and President, Joseph L. Bast, argue that smokers already pay too much tax, that proposals for further restrictions on tobacco and smoking are based on “junk science”, that lawsuits against the tobacco industry are an example of “lawsuit abuse”, that bans on smoking “hurt small businesses and violate private property rights”, that the harm caused to smokers can be reduced by “educating” them “about their options” and that restrictions on smokers violate “the basic libertarian principles that ought to limit the use of government force.”[30] http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…
Do you really trust a source like this on environmental issues when they deny the health dangers of smoking and second hand smoke? Would you risk your children’s health by smoking around them or allowing them to spend time in smoke-filled restaurants? I don’t trust any group whose goal is to maximize profits for corporations over public health and safety.
The article you sent me on global warming from the American Policy Roundtable is “adapted” from a Heartland Institute report in 2003. A lot has happened since 2003, as I’m sure you would agree. http://www.aproundtable.org/tp… Click on the link to Heartland Institute to see the original report.
The APR report mentions a petition drive to get scientists to say they don’t think there is a human connection to climate change, specifically from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
http://www.petitionproject.org… While its title sounds very professional, if you look at the site, OISM has no connection with any university or other academically accredited institution. You and I could set up a group and post any info we want with no one to evaluate our authenticity. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the names on the petition are fakes.
Beneath the chart on the above mentioned site, we find this paragraph which reveals the hidden agenda of OISM:
“The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.”
The purpose here is to undermine the credibility of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by making off-the-wall charges about “world taxation” and “rationing.”
If you take a few minutes to check out the reports by the IPCC on their website, you will find hundreds of independent sources, many of which were originally skeptical about human activity and climate change but who have had to face the facts and the overwhelmingly convincing data from tests and measurements all over the world.
I know there is currently a common misconception about the discussion in the 1970’s about the Earth cooling instead of warming. There is an extensive review of those earlier discussions by geologists and other scientists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…
One quick peek reveals this paragraph: The National Science Board’s Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. “Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now.”[18] But it also continued; “However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.”[18]
Again, I want to thank you for your interest in this topic. Having this discussion with you has motivated me to do a little research of my own. So we are learning together. You are young, and, God willing, your children will outlive you by several dozen years. As you watch the National Geographic Society documentary I’m sending you, think about what the conditions will be like for your children’s generation. Even the U.S. military takes climate change seriously and has extensive research projects underway to determine what the effects will be on populations around the world.
I look forward to continuing this learning experience with you.
I noticed on Scott’s website that he taught high school history and geography. So I sent him the video “Six Degrees Could Change the World” by the National Geographic Society.
It strikes me as odd (not the right word) that someone who taught high school and relies on fake sources for his opinions should feel he is qualified to sponsor a bill about teaching qualifications..