Is Malloy's Education Refom Bill REALLY Reform, or is it NCLB Part 2?

There has been a lot of talk among people about Gov. Malloy and his “education reform” bill, otherwise known as SB 24.  I am a Math and Science teacher at a magnet school, and am doing my Masters in Special Education at Saint Joseph College, so I have heard a lot about it from the teacher (and teacher UNION end of things).  I have also done some reading up on the bill, from the text of the bill (if you want a headache, try reading all that legal and political speak - WOW!) to articles in the media about Malloy’s Education Forums (held in many low-performing districts), and the CEA and AFT-CT websites.  I think I have a pretty good handle on the bill, what it says, and how it will change education in our state, both from a parent perspective and a teacher perspective.

First, the basics of the bill.  SB 24 proposes three basic things.  One, the state would put money into early childhood education.  Two, the state would put plans in place to improve failing districts and reward districts (with extra money) that are “committed to reform.”  Three, the state would change the law pertaining to teacher certification, tenure and evaluation, and make districts and local unions base pay scales on teacher performance ratings.

Now, these seem like good goals.  Studies have shown that educating children at the preschool level makes them more likely to succeed in school and afterwards.  So, why not fund early childhood education?  Wait...SB 24, according to some people, would only provide enough funding for 500 students at the preschool level.  Last I checked, we have more than 500 preschool kids in CT.  Some cities have more than that in a CLASS YEAR, let alone the two to three that they would need preschool for.  If you are going to fund early childhood education, go ALL OUT.  Provide it for ALL CHILDREN, not just 500 kids!  But, our wonderful Gov. Malloy plays games word games...he is funding early childhood education, require the TOWNS to cover the REST of it since the state can’t afford it!

Well, what about the district funding?  That’s a good goal, right?  Again, in theory, it is.  However, the bill again plays towards making people THINK Gov. Malloy is doing a good thing and trying to IMPROVE our children’s education, when he is, in fact, spending little and putting control of schools under the CT State Department of Education under Commissioner Stefan Pryor (for information on the Commissioner and what he knows about education, check out links on him here and here).  I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t put schools under the control of a state department with all its bureaucracy and politicization, especially under someone who has not been a part of the classroom end of the educational system but dealt with only the business and political end of the system.  How is turning our lowest performing schools into a business (with its economic-efficiency system) HELPING?  Instead of trying to make them economically efficient and politically beneficial to Gov. Malloy and his cronies, let’s use some REAL REFORM, techniques that have been PROVEN to WORK!

Lastly, the teacher tenure - now THIS is a flawed system, right?  Well, I agree - the teacher tenure system IS flawed.  However, this is due to the state’s own doing, and the politicians’ being in bed with the teacher’s unions for so long.  State law currently defines tenure as, “The completion of thirty school months of full-time continuous employment for the same board of education for teachers initially hired prior to July 1, 1996; and forty such school months for teachers initially hired on or after said date provided the superintendent offers the teacher a contract to return for the following school year.”  Basically, the state legislature passed a bill that based tenure on the length of time a teacher was teaching for.  The district had the right to get rid of teachers who were tenured by failing to offer a contract for the following year.  Well, so what if tenure was defined by the state - they should change the definition so it is easier to get rid of ineffective teachers.  Well, the new tenure definition will be based on teacher evaluations.  Forty-five percent of the evaluation will be based on “Multiple student learning indicators”, one half of which is how their students do on the state testing (required under NCLB) and the other half is undefined.  Five percent will be based on the WHOLE SCHOOL “learning indicators” (i.e. performance on the tests).  So, fully ONE HALF of a teacher’s performance is based on the state’s determination of success in student performance, 22 percent of which is UNDEFINED!  If you are going to base a person’s job and salary (which SB 24 would do) on state testing (which is, in the opinion of a majority of teachers, parents and students that I talk to, already FAILED), WHO in their RIGHT MIND would WANT to be a teacher?  For a good article which gives even more reasons why recent college graduates are avoiding teaching careers, check out this article.

I’m sure that Gov. Malloy has wonderful intentions (as well as his future political career in mind...), but, as the saying goes, “The road to H*** is paved with good intentions.”  Do we want to do this quickly or do we want to do this right?  Do we want to leave this up to Gov. Malloy to decide what good education is?  This is a man who is a career politician and attorney, someone who is NOT a teacher, someone who, during his time as Mayor of Stamford, had schools that graduated less seniors that the average HS in CT, had a 30% higher dropout rate, lower average SAT scores (and a lower percentage of students TAKING the SATs that the average CT HS)?  How about someone who, in 14 years as mayor of Stamford, couldn’t get more than 47.3% of their students to pass any part of the CAPT (tenth grade) test (Writing Across the Disciplines according to the 2007 testing data).  That year, the average CT district had a 57.9% pass rate on that same section.  I am attaching the Stamford CMT/CAPT testing data as a pdf to this blog post so you can see for yourself.

I’m sorry, Gov. Malloy.  In 14 years, you didn’t seem to be able to turn around the Stamford schools.  Now, you are taking the politically popular “whack-a-teacher” position, blaming teachers, among other things, for poor student performance.  Maybe, if you spent less time at your forums trying to TALK UP your idea and, instead, LISTENED to your constituents, maybe you might start to UNDERSTAND the real problem.  It is that students, teachers and parents are not MOTIVATED to succeed in educational settings.  School has become a place of trying to meet standards that are old and not relevant to real life through standardized tests that have even LESS relevancy to the real world.  MAYBE, if you were to start THERE, you might actually ACHIEVE some of the educational reform you keep talking about.  Forget about applying for a waiver on some parts of NCLB - tell the Federal Department of Education that we won’t be BRIBED into throwing away our children’s future.  They can KEEP their money - we will do what’s BEST for our kids and change education for the BETTER by eliminating those standardized tests.  Only THEN can you even BEGIN to reform education!