The Authoritative Run-Down of the “First To The Top” Legislation

There’s been a lot of talk in the papers and on the web about what this bill does and doesn’t do.  Somewhat ridiculously, no one actually links to the text of the legislation, even though the bill is actually quite short and easy to understand.  You can find the original bills on the Tennessee General Assembly website, as well as all the amendments, but there’s no link to download the final version, either there or on the Governor’s website (for shame!).   That quibble aside, there’s been a lot of ink spilt describing what the bill does or doesn’t do, and not all of it correct.  My view?  Put the text of the bill up for consideration and base it off that.  I truly don’t understand folks’ preoccupation with needlessly summarizing, especially if the summary is going to be as long and detailed as the text of the bill itself.  Sheesh.

The last amendment on the bill was House Amendment 23 (HA7025) which simply replaces the entire text of the previous versions with the new (agreed-upon) text.  Therefore, it represents the final language.  I’m going to skip some of the less important sections (e.g., Section 4, adopting the U.S. Dept. of Education’s definition of “persistently lowest achieving schools”), with the caveat that these sections still have potentially large effects, but aren’t as interesting to talk about and aren’t as straightforward.  Thus, I present the authoritative guide to the (important parts of the) “First to the Top” legislation:

Section 7: Using More Student Achievement Data (Only One Year of Data Required For Use)

Here’s the text of the bill:

Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-1-606(a), is amended by deleting the second sentence of the subsection in its entirety.

Here’s what got deleted:

A specific teacher’s effect on the educational progress of students may not be used as a part of formal personnel evaluation until data from three (3) complete academic years are obtained.

Well, that’s pretty straightforward.  According to the new evaluation model that’s been adopted (and will be fleshed out, discussed below), student achievement data will be used to evaluate teachers and principals.  Before, you had to wait until you had at least three years of data to use it at all (note: it was never really used, so this was more or less dead letter anyway).  Now, one year’ll do ya’.

Section 8: Using Student Achievement Data to Judge Teacher Prep Programs

Hey!  Alright!  We got something else in the bill that I (along with a ton of other people) suggested: link student achievement/teacher effect data back to teacher preparation programs, so as to find out how well those programs do preparing our teachers.  Hopefully this will really kick into gear — there’s huge potential not just to say “This one bad; that one good,” but to really see the gaps in teacher preparation (math? reading? science?) and to remedy the programs accordingly.  Here’s the text of the bill:

Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-1-606(b), is amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the subsection:

The estimates of specific teacher effects may also be made available to the state board approved teacher preparation programs of individual teachers. The estimates made available to the preparation programs shall not be personally identifiable with a particular teacher.

Here’s what the section looks like now (with the new language underlined):

(b) The estimates of specific teacher effects on the educational progress of students will not be a public record, and will be made available only to the specific teacher, the teacher’s appropriate administrators as designated by the local board of education and school board members. The state department of education shall provide raw test score data to LEAs as soon as practicable after receipt of the data, but in no case later than June 30.  The estimates of specific teacher effects may also be made available to the state board approved teacher preparation programs of individual teachers. The estimates made available to the preparation programs shall not be personally identifiable with a particular teacher.

Section 9: Turning Around Schools With The “Achievement School District”

Just a quick word on nomenclature: Why is it we feel we have to over-optimistically label everything, effectively naming things, as near as possible, the exact opposite of what they really are?  I mean, is “Achievement School District” really going to fool anyone?  Would “Turnaround School District” really affect morale that much?  Maybe it’s just me.

At any rate, it should be noted at the outset that this section doesn’t actually delete or replace any language; it’s a new section in and of itself in the Tennessee Code.  The whole section basically gives the Commissioner of Education (currently Tim Webb, but soon to be someone else Dr. Webb is leaving to be Cheatham County Director of Schools) the power to take over failing schools (there will be 13 targeted across Tennessee) and either run them, or hand them over to others to run.  The key language:

(b) The commissioner shall have the authority to contract with one or more individuals, governmental entities or nonprofit entities to manage the day to day operations of any or all schools or LEAs placed in the achievement school district, including, but not limited to providing direct services to students.

There’s been a bit of discussion in recent days about why the “individual” language is in there.  Rep. Susan Lynn is apparently of the opinion that this is a back-door for vouchers in Tennessee:

Including individuals was a curious provision which never really seemed to receive an answer that revealed a logical purpose in committee. Not until the funding amendment created the possibility that a school could really be placed in alternative governance and that the governance could be provided by an individual was it realized late last night that this seems to be assembling the parts for a voucher system for these long suffering students. If individuals can contract with the state to educate a student, that may mean that parents could be the contractor and use those funds to seek their choice of desired education for their child.

Although provided few clear answers, probably so as to leave the legislation sufficiently vague and aiding passage, this bill could be one of the most sweeping reforms that Tennessee has ever undertaken.

I disagree.  First, I don’t think the door is wide enough to allow vouchers.  At this point, it’s the Commissioner making the decision to contract, and it’ll will be clear from the legislative history (stuff extensively discussed in committee) that the target of this provision is 13 specific schools.  Though technically you could argue a statutory construction that would allow something like vouchers (home-schooled kids are literally in “home schools” under Tennessee Law, see T.C.A. 49-6-3050(a)(1) (“A ‘home school’ is a school conducted by a parent or parents or a legal guardian or guardians for their own children”)), that’s clearly not the intent of the law as it stands.  There would have to be additional legislation specifically authorizing something like that.  So, contrary to Rep. Lynn, I don’t actually think this is any kind of “building block” on the way to vouchers, especially since pretty specific legislation would have to be passed to make them happen (it’s not like you can point to this section as being halfway there and just add one more magic sentence).

Secondly, I think the purpose of the provision is much simpler: The option of mayoral control.  Recall that our own Mayor, Karl Dean, was reportedly keenly interested in taking over MNPS (with the support of Governor Bredesen) if it failed to meet AYP this year (also remember that MNPS isn’t out of the woods yet).  Mayor Dean might fall under the “governmental entit[y]” provision, or he might not.  If he doesn’t, then the “individual[]” certainly will give the Commissioner that option.  I wouldn’t be surprised if we see some deal-making this summer and Dean takes control of a school or two in Nashville in the next year or two.  But that’s just a guess — we’ll see.

The other key part of the “Achievement School District” provision is here:

The individual, governmental entity or nonprofit entity contracted with to manage schools or LEAs that have been placed in the achievement school district may apply to the commissioner for a waiver of any state board rule that inhibits or hinders the ability of the school or LEA to achieve the required adequate yearly progress benchmarks.

There are also, of course, a long list of things that are not waivable (civil rights, immunizations, records requirements, etc.).

Finally, there’s some funding stuff, but even though it’s somewhat important (and sure was argued about enough), it’s pretty boring.  I’m going to (gasp!) summarize it for you: Essentially, the new managers of these “achievement” districts can’t implement programs and initiatives that will create recurring funding obligations on the LEA when the school is eventually turned around and returned to its original district.  In return, the LEA that temporarily loses a school to the Achievement District must place that school’s BEP funds in a reserve account so that they’re there not allocated elsewhere when the school comes back (e.g., the district allocates those funds to teacher bonuses while the school is gone, and when the school comes back, the bonuses continue, still claiming the funding, resulting in a lack of funds for the returning school since they’ve been allocated elsewhere).  The BEP funds that accrue while the school is gone can be used only for non-recurring purposes.

Section 10: Teacher Evaluations

Here’s the one everyone was up in arms about.  First, the key text:

(1) There is hereby created the “teacher evaluation advisory committee”. The committee shall consist of fifteen (15) members. The commissioner of education, the executive director of the state board of education and the chairpersons of the education committees of the senate and the house of representatives shall be members. One (1) member shall be a K-12 public school teacher appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives and one (1) member shall be a K-12 public school teacher appointed by the speaker of the senate. The remaining nine (9) members shall be appointed by the governor and shall consist of three (3) public school teachers, two (2) public school principals, one (1) director of a school district, and three (3) members representing other stake-holders interests; provided, that at least one (1) member of the committee shall be a parent of a currently enrolled public school student. The membership of the committee shall appropriately reflect the racial and geographic diversity of this state. The commissioner of education shall serve as the chairperson of the committee. All appointments to the teacher evaluation advisory committee shall be made within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this act.

(2) The committee shall develop and recommend to the board, guidelines and criteria for the annual evaluation of all teachers and principals employed by LEAs, including a local-level evaluation grievance procedure. This grievance procedure shall provide a means for evaluated teachers and principals to challenge only the accuracy of the data used in the evaluation and the adherence to the evaluation policies adopted pursuant to this subdivision. Following the development of these guidelines and criteria, the board shall adopt guidelines and criteria. The evaluations shall be a factor in employment decisions, including but not necessarily limited to promotion, retention, termination, compensation and the attainment of tenure status.

(A) Fifty percent (50%) of the evaluation criteria developed pursuant to this subdivision (2) shall be comprised of student achievement data.

(i) Thirty-five percent (35%) of the evaluation criteria shall be student achievement data based on student growth data as represented by the TVAAS, developed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 49, Chapter 1, Part 6, or some other comparable measure of student growth, if no such TVAAS data is available.

(ii) Fifteen percent (15%) shall be based on other measures of student achievement selected from a list of such measures developed by the teacher evaluation advisory committee and adopted by the board. For each evaluation, the teacher or principal being evaluated shall mutually agree with the person or persons responsible for conducting the evaluation on which such measures are employed. If the teacher or principal being evaluated does not agree with the measures used, the person or persons responsible for conducting the evaluation shall choose the evaluation measures.

(iii) Notwithstanding subdivisions (i) and (ii) above, if a particular teacher’s or principal’s student growth data, as described in subdivision (i) above, reflects attainment of a specific achievement level, to be recommended by the teacher evaluation advisory committee and adopted by the board, then such student growth data may, at the choice of the individual being evaluated, comprise fifty percent (50%) of their evaluation. (B) Other mandatory criteria for the evaluations shall include but
not necessarily be limited to the following:

(i) Review of prior evaluations; and
(ii) Personal conferences to include discussion of strengths, weaknesses and remediation; and
(iii) Relative to teachers only, classroom or position observation followed by written assessment; and
(iv) Relative to principals only, additional criteria pursuant to § 49-2-303(a)(1).

OK.  Got all that?  Essentially, this is what the TEA and the Governor were wrangling about.  In the end, I think this was a pretty good win for Governor Bredesen.  Essentially, student achievement data is now going to be included in all HR decisions, including compensation and tenure.  Also, we’re getting yearly evaluations of teachers (I couldn’t believe that teachers, once tenured, only got two evaluations in 10 years.  Are you kidding?).  Contrary to what Rep. Campfield is saying, this isn’t permissive language, it’s mandatory.  The Committee shall develop new, annual evaluations that shall include 50% student achievement data and shall be used in employment decisions, including compensation, tenure, etc.  That is, unless I’m looking at the wrong version of the bill (hence my complaint about not being able to find a “final version” anywhere online) and everything was suddenly changed to “may” like the Rep. seems to think.  Just for reference, this is what I’m talking about (from Rep. Campfield’s blog):

Teachers scores (on if the teacher improved an individual child’s performance) “MAY” or “MAY NOT” be used as part (up to 50%) of an evaluation of teacher performance previous to giving them tenure [WRONG]. Tenure “MAY” be granted as late as the 4th year of employment (Or as soon as the first day) [not sure where he's getting this - it's not addressed in the bill].

Of course the principal CAN NOT use that information as a way to determine teacher pay or tenure status if the teacher has already achieved tenure unless the state has taken over the school [WRONG -- you can't take away tenure, but you can make compensation decisions based on student achievement data, even for tenured teachers].

Not to sound harsh, but, frankly, I’m not sure Rep. Campfield read the bill.

Section 11: Principals

This section pretty much falls in line with the teacher evaluation stuff, in that it requires more accountability from principals (in mushier language) as well as contracts for all principals.  The text:

Each director of schools shall employ principals for the public schools. The employment contract with each principal shall be in writing, shall not exceed the contract term of the current director of schools, and may be renewed. The contract shall specify duties other than those prescribed by statute and shall contain performance standards including the requirement that the principal’s annual evaluation be based on student achievement data, with a significant portion, as defined by the guidelines and criteria adopted by the board in accordance with § 49-1-302(d)(2), being student growth data as reflected in teacher effect data and TVAAS data, as such data is developed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 49, Chapter 1, Part 6. Other standards that may be considered in the evaluation shall include but not be limited to other benchmarks for student proficiency, graduation rates, ACT scores where applicable and student attendance. The contract shall provide for consequences when the standards are not met. The performance contract may provide for bonuses beyond base salary, if performance standards are met or exceeded. Reasons for the nonrenewal of a contract may include, but are not limited to inadequate performance as determined by the evaluations. A principal who has tenure as a teacher shall retain all rights of such status, expressly including those specified in § 49-5-510.

Section 12: Alternative Salary Schedules

I’m actually a bit confused about the larger purpose behind this section — I know similar sections have been in place, but I’m wondering why we require districts to submit salary schedules to the state at all.  Why don’t we just let the districts experiment?  That’s the whole “laboratories of democracy” thing that states-righters (alright, it’s not just states-righters — it’s sort of part and parcel to the whole “Federalism” idea) are always on about, right?  Anyway, here’s the language:

In the alternative, an LEA may submit to the commissioner its own proposed salary schedule, subject to collective bargaining where applicable. Implementation of such a salary schedule shall be subject to approval by the commissioner and the state board. In no case shall a salary schedule adopted pursuant to this subdivision (1) result in the reduction of the salary of a teacher employed by the LEA at the time of the adoption of the salary schedule. Any additional expenditure incurred as a result of any such salary schedule shall be subject to appropriation by the governing body empowered to appropriate the funds.

I find it odd that we have a state salary schedule.  Is that normal?  Here’s the language in the Tennessee Code that immediately precedes the new section:

(a)(1) The commissioner, as approved by the state board of education, shall annually formulate a table of training and experience factors and a state salary schedule to be effective for each school year, which shall be applicable to all licensed personnel in every LEA, and which shall include an established base salary per school year consisting of a term of two hundred (200) days for beginning licensed personnel with a bachelor’s degree and zero (0) years of experience. Licensed personnel having more training and experience shall receive more than the established base per school year. Certified personnel having less training and experience shall receive less than the established base per school year. The salary schedule shall not be applicable to substitute personnel.

Section 13: Independent Dismissed Teacher Hearings

This one’s also pretty easy.  Everywhere in Tennessee except for Memphis and Nashville the local school board does the due process hearings for dismissed tenured teachers.  This can get kind of political (as you might imagine).  This section implements the “independent hearing” idea that Nashville and Memphis have been rolling with:

(a) A tenured teacher, who receives notification of charges pursuant to § 49-5- 511, may, within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice, demand a full and complete hearing on the charges before an impartial hearing officer selected by the board, as follows . . .

(3) For the purposes of this part, “impartial” means that the selected hearing officer shall have no history of employment with the board or director of schools, no relationship with any board member and no relationship with the teacher or representatives of the teacher

This is a very good idea, and one that I’m glad we’ve implemented.  There’s more stuff about how the hearing procedure works, but the key part is that it is independent, not run by the board.

***************

Well there you go.  A (fairly) detailed analysis (with text!) of the “landmark” legislation that was just passed.  I’d be happy to be corrected if I got anything wrong (which is entirely possible), but overall, with what we’ve got, I think Tennessee has taken a big step forward.  Now if only I could get a peek at our actual RTTT application….

Edit: You know what? After all that moaning and complaining about not being able to find the text, WPLN did post it after all (and I am using the right version).  Good on them.  Gotta love NPR.