Introduced
by
To move back until the 2018-19 school year the deadlines imposed by a 2011 law establishing a process for determining whether teachers are “effective” in which 22.5 percent of the assessment is based on the progress of students in their classroom on statewide tests. A school would be prohibited from assigning students to a class in the same subject for two years in a row taught by a teacher rated “ineffective” in that subject two years in a row. Nothing would prohibit continuing to assign new students to an ineffective teacher, however.
Referred to the Committee on Education
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the substitute (S-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Amendment offered
To reduce the amount of a teacher's assessment based on actual "student growth" or academic progress from 50 percent to 40 percent.
The amendment passed by voice vote
Amendment offered
by
To place in statute a restrictive list of requirements that teacher evaluation tools would have to contain.
The amendment failed 18 to 19 (details)
Amendment offered
by
To only allow teachers to be rated on student test results if three years of testing data are available.
The amendment passed 20 to 17 (details)
Amendment offered
by
To revise a reference to when during the year teacher evaluations would be performed.
The amendment passed by voice vote
Amendment offered
by
To only allow teachers to be rated on student test results if three years of data from the same tests are available.
The amendment failed 15 to 22 (details)
Amendment offered
by
To make doing teacher evaluations contingent on adopting detailed and restrictive standards for teacher evaluators and systems.
The amendment failed 15 to 22 (details)
Amendment offered
by
To add an additional level of appeal for teachers who don't like the "ineffective" evaluation rating they've been given.
The amendment failed 12 to 25 (details)
Amendment offered
by
To expand the range of teacher performance evaluations criteria to include measures that are not "value added" ones.
The amendment failed 12 to 25 (details)
Passed in the Senate 22 to 15 (details)
To delay until the 2018-19 school year the final deadline to establish a teacher "effectiveness" rating system, and reduce the amount of the rating that is based on assessments actual of students in a teacher's classroom. A school would be prohibited from assigning students to a class in the same subject for two years in a row taught by a teacher rated “ineffective” in that subject, but new students could still be assigned.
Referred to the Committee on Education
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the substitute (H-8) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Amendment offered
by
To require a teacher to have been given mostly "highly effective" ratings by administrators and no "ineffective" ratings in order to qualify for a particular state education certificate.
The amendment passed by voice vote
Amendment offered
by
To require that the training schools are required to provide to ineffective teachers be paid out of a particular state fund.
The amendment passed by voice vote
Passed in the House 97 to 8 (details)
To base just 20 percent of a teacher's "effectiveness" rating on actual progress of students in the teacher's classroom as measured by state assessments, instead of as much as 50 percent suggested by a 2011 teacher tenure reform law. Also, to let school districts develop their own evaluation tools for other parts of the rating rather than ones prescribed by the state. A school would be prohibited from assigning students to a class in the same subject for two years in a row taught by a teacher rated “ineffective” in that subject, but new students could still be assigned to that teacher.
Passed in the Senate 35 to 2 (details)
