Evidently, public school teachers are a threat to civilization as we know it.

HB 628 — Teacher Continuing Contract Act

Sponsor:  Dieckhaus

This bill changes the laws regarding teacher contracts and establishes the Teacher Continuing Contract Act which will apply to teachers in all school districts, including St. Louis City, beginning July 1, 2012.  In its main provisions, the bill:

(1)  Bases 50% of a teacher’s evaluation on teaching standards under the professional continuum developed by the State Board of Education within the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education;

(2)  Eliminates the minimum teacher salary for holders of a master’s degree;

(3)  Specifies that the current Teacher Tenure Act and the St. Louis City Tenure Act will remain in effect until June 30, 2012;

(4)  Requires an annual evaluation of each school administrator and bases 50% of his or her score on the professional continuum for administrators developed by the state board and adds a component, also to be weighted at 50%, that evaluates an administrator on his or her instructional leadership by assessing the performance of the instructional personnel for whom he or she has supervisory capacity;

(5)  Specifies that a contract between a school district and a teacher will be known as a continuing contract and will continue in effect for up to two or more years, while probationary contracts last one year;

(6)  Establishes transition provisions for the interim placement of teachers on probationary contracts until salary schedules are developed based on student performance data and data is available;

(7)  Allows for novice and transfer probationary teachers’ contract lengths in specified situations;

(8)  Establishes contract lengths in accordance with scores on teacher evaluations in four tiers;

(9)  Allows elements other than years of service and highest degree held to be added to salary schedules including, but not limited to, additional certification areas, certification in high-need subjects, mentoring, and demonstrated ability to improve student performance;

(10)  Establishes a salary schedule effective July 1, 2013, based on performance, with teachers above the thirty-third to sixty-sixth percentile receiving a performance pay increment of no less than 10% over the base pay of the bottom 33% of teachers; the next 17% will receive a pay increment that is no less than 25% over the base of the third tier of teachers; and the top tier will receive an increment no less than 60% of the second tier;

(11)  Adds unsatisfactory performance to the list of reasons for which a permanent teacher may be terminated and requires teacher evaluations to be considered in determining professional competence; and

(12)  Requires teachers to be evaluated at least annually and twice in the final year of a continuing contract, places equal weight on student performance and achievement of teaching standards, and limits teaching standard scores in the top 33% to no more than 40% of a building’s teachers.

Several current provisions regarding teacher tenure will remain unchanged including, but not limited to:

(1)  Modifications of continuing contracts;

(2)  Leaves of absence, except that a leave of absence due to teacher reduction may be granted for two years rather than three years and seniority are removed from consideration when rehiring after a reduction in force;

(3)  Board member civil liability for charges against teachers; and

(4)  Prohibition on teacher participation in school board election campaigns.

[emphasis added]

The bill inadvertantly left out “let’s take’em all out back and beat the crap out of them.”

In addition to getting rid of teacher tenure (which, at present, makes school boards follow procedure and show cause for teacher dismissal) the bill says so many other interesting things.

“…Eliminates the minimum teacher salary for holders of a master’s degree…” Because we don’t want people teaching our kids to bother acquiring even more professional training.

“…Establishes contract lengths in accordance with scores on teacher evaluations in four tiers…” Because we don’t want the best teachers tackling the tough teaching assignments. From the bill:

…3. Each district shall rank-order its teachers by the totals of their performance-based evaluation scores and their student performance scores…

“…Board member civil liability for charges against teachers…” Because school boards always follow procedures and policies and never ever make decisions based on personalities, petty concerns, or their past traumatic experience on their junior high student council.

“…Prohibition on teacher participation in school board election campaigns…” Because indentured servants shouldn’t be able to speak out about elections.

Ah, this may explain some of the bill:

…Prior to his service in the legislature, Rep. Dieckhaus worked as an office manager for Custom Security Services, LLC. He also worked as an educator from 2002 too 2007. He taught World History and Psychology for three years at Hermann High School and American Government, American History and World Geography for one year at St. Clair High School…

Our front pager, Sarah Jo, also writes for the Franklin County Dems website and had this to say on that site about a Franklin County Republican rep, Scott Dieckhaus:

Follow The Money

Scott Dieckhaus and his friends

Date Posted: Saturday, July 31, 2010 by sarah jo

It’s traditional in political campaigns to follow the money in order to predict how an elected official will vote on specific bills. If this model holds true for Scott Dieckhaus, (R-109) it’s a safe bet that he will be one of King Rex’s boys when he heads back to Jeff City.

Franklin Countians concerned about Ameren’s plans for a huge coal ash dump in Labadie can take no comfort either.

According to MEC filings reported in the Missourian today, Scott’s largest contributor to his campaign is Rex Sinquefield, the billionaire puppet master of Missouri Republican politicians. We can expect Scott to show his appreciation for King Rex’s $4,500 donation during the next legislative session.

AmerenUE’s political action committee gave Scott $1,000, a paltry sum by utility company standards. But Labadie is in Scott’s district, and he has been noticeably absent from any of the public hearings on the coal ash dump. I wonder if any of the Republican voters following the coal ash controversy have come to realize how little the GOP cares about local health, safety and environmental issues. For them, it’s all about money and power.   Ameren knows it can get away with using our county as their toxic waste dump because no one in a position to stop them will.

To give Dieckhaus credit, he actually got on the blogsite and responded in the comments section. Several times, in fact. Here’s part of his first:

I’m always happy to answer questions when asked of or about me. First, I’d like to clear up a few misstatements from Sarah Jo’s initial post: 1) Most campaign contributions do not come to influence votes; rather, they are usually a result of having already made votes and people agreeing with those votes. 2) Rex Sinquefield has given to my campaign, but he is hardly a “puppet master of Missouri Republican politicians”. If he were, wouldn’t we have had some significant education reforms by now? Maybe a “Fair Tax” system in place? We do have a Republican majority in both houses of the General Assembly. Rex gives to just as many Democrats as he does Republicans (I don’t know that the numbers are exactly the same – but VERY close). As I stated in my first point, Rex has taken an interest in my campaign because I am a former teacher who is in favor of many of the reforms that he seeks. I stated those views openly when I ran for office in 2007-2008 and have filed several bills related to my beliefs. Rex has contributed to my campaign because he and I share a vision of providing a quality education to each student in this state.

As for the AmerenUE issue, I am staying on top of it. It is the biggest issue in my district, and I have talked to many of the residents in the Labadie/St. Albans area – as well as other concerned citizens – about it. My personal view is that if AmerenUE meets the regulations that have been established by the federal, state, and county governments, they should have the right to place the landfill on their property. Admittedly, I believe that the county should proceed VERY cautiously. I think a conditional-use permit that would prohibit AmerenUE from bringing coal ash from other facilities and possibly raising the landfill to the 500-year flood plain are fair proposals.

With that being said, I included a question on this issue on a survey that was recently sent to my constituents. At this time (probably about 1/3 of the surveys I expect to receive have been returned), my constituents district-wide are opposed to the landfill in any capacity by a narrow margin. If that holds true, I will openly oppose the landfill as their representative because that is my job.

Dieckhaus strikes me the same way Sen. Eric Schmitt does, as a “moderate”–until you scratch the surface. As the Democrats challenged Dieckhaus’ assertion that Dems get almost as much Sinquefield money as the Rs do, he kept backing away from that statement, until finally one commenter wrote this:

You are still bending the truth on this, Scott. If you look just at lawmakers in Jeff City Sinquefield contributed directly to only 4 Democrats and 17 Republicans. If you also include Democrats from St. Louis City and County governments that makes six. Even then Sinquefield gave a total of 125k to these six Democrats while giving nearly $10 million to Republicans and Republican committees and causes. That’s not “just as many Democrats” as Republicans. That’s not “about 1/3 of his contributions”. And that’s not “over 1/4” of his total contributions, per your latest walk back. The fact is, Sinquefield has contributed to every single Republican in the state house and Senate by way of the House Republican Committee, the Senate Leadership Committee and the Missouri Republican Party.

Another commenter tackled the way Dieckhaus pretended not to be carrying water for Ameren:

Representative Dieckhaus,

You say you have been “staying on top” of the Ameren issue. Were you at any of the three Planning and Zoning meetings where this was discussed? I do not recall seeing you there. Please correct me if I am wrong. You said you have spoken to “many residents in the Labadie/St. Albans area”. Other than the meeting with you in Jefferson City early this year, and a couple of follow up emails from us, to the best of my knowledge you have made no attempt to contact the Labadie Environmental Organization to stay current on the issue. How can you “stay on top” without getting up to date information first hand from one of the main parties involved in the issue?

Your survey results on the landfill issue would have a wider margin opposing the landfill if it would have been written and posed in an unbiased manner. It is heavily slanted in favor of Ameren’s proposed landfill and mentions the opposition just as an afterthought. It is no accident that those who know little or nothing about the facts would vote yes just relying on the information on your survey. This happens all too often. Questions and ballot initiatives are crafted to get the results the authors want.

Most importantly “meeting the regulations that have been established by the federal, state, and county governments” is not the full story. That statement gives people a false sense of safety and security. Number one, the federal regulations are currently under review by the EPA to possibly regulate coal ash under Subtitle C hazardous waste rules. Number two, the state regulations are weak and not protective of public health and the environment. Number three, there are no regulations on the county level and that is what this issue is all about. The Labadie Environmental Organization is fighting to insure that the county does the right thing in being thorough and thoughtful in their consideration of this issue.

I appreciate the fact that Dieckhaus was willing to walk into the lions’ den by responding to Sarah Jo. But he needed a whip to protect himself in the form of demonstrable facts. He didn’t have those. The Franklin County Democrats examined his whip and pointed out to him that it was really just a wet noodle. They may have left him with a few scars.

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.