Matthew Neff
May 5, 2010
Legislative Scholar Internship
Dr. Aubrey Jewett
Reforming Education to Compete Globally
The future of our nation begins in our classrooms. Our classrooms provide the basic foundation for the success of our next generation of leaders and innovators. Education accounts for many of the successes of advanced nations. According to a worldwide study, American children are falling behind children in other nations. American children do not demonstrate the same knowledge in key areas such as mathematics and science as some of our largest competitors in innovation and research such as China and many other Asian nations.[1] Without providing our future generations with a strong foundation, how can we expect to remain competitive in a growing global marketplace? It is imperative that the United States recognizes the deficiencies in our educational system and is brave enough to enact reforms to vastly improve how we educate. When President Obama took office he vowed to encourage reform and improvement in our educational system. Florida has taken a step towards reform with the proposal of Senate Bill 6. This bill will encourage teachers to use more innovative approaches to achieve results while financially rewarding them for their accomplishments. The legislation would also provide incentives for teachers to enter the most difficult situations and ensure each child receives the best education possible while also providing incentives to teach in the critical areas where America is lagging, i.e. math and science. Unfortunately this sweeping reform has been met with strong opposition from teachers and unions. Many of the reforms currently being sought around the country come during a downturn in the economy when many states face huge budget shortfalls and are being forced to cut their education budgets. To lessen the burden of the budget deficits, the Obama Administration has been encouraging these reforms by offering states millions of dollars through the Race to the Top program.
Race to the Top
On February 13, 2009, Congress passed into law the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), also known as the Stimulus Bill, at the urging of President Obama. According to the Obama administration website recovery.gov, the main goals of this legislation were to “create new jobs and save existing ones, spur economic activity and invest in long-term growth, and to foster unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency in government spending.”[2] Included in this bill were billions of dollars designated specifically for education. This included money to save teacher jobs in the face of enormous state budget shortfalls. One of the Obama Administration’s goals was to implement education reform to produce strong students to compete in a growing global marketplace. The program, known as Race to the Top, was designed to reward states that enacted reform to improve their education system. The ARRA provides roughly $4.3 billion for the fund. For states to be eligible to receive this award, they must enact reforms grounded in four key areas.
Many of America’s schools, specifically many inner-city schools, are historically low performing. Many of the students attending these schools face challenges of low quality teachers, often times new to the profession or teaching in an area they were not trained in, and under funding. One of the major goals of this program is to provide more equality by turning around the lowest performing schools in the nation. Another major goal of the program is to implement a system to measure student-learning gains and provide instructors with information to refine their teaching practices to adapt to current student needs. Another requirement obligates states to develop standards to retain and reward effective teachers and administrators. Education reform would be a useless exercise of legislative power if it did nothing to entice productive teachers to stay in the profession. The final requirement to be considered for the award money is to raise educational standards to produce intelligent students who can be competitive in a growing job marketplace.[3] For the United States Department of Education to grant a state the award money, applying states must have policies in place to meet these new standards. I believe this was the key motivating force behind Senate Bill 6.
Teacher Contracts
Senate Bill 6 is a comprehensive education reform bill that was introduced by Senator John Thrasher. The legislation changes many aspects of public education in the state of Florida including teacher contracts, tenure, performance evaluations, and various other education policies. One of the major changes deals with the issue of tenure. Should a teacher be able to retain their job simply based on the fact that they have been teaching for a certain number of years? Senator John Thrasher says no.
Under current Florida Statute, a newly hired teacher enters into an initial contract not to exceed three years. The first 97 days constitutes a probationary period in which the teacher can resign without a breach of contract or may be dismissed without cause. This initial contract is subject to annual review and renewal.[4] After the initial contract, an instructor enters into a professional service contract, not to exceed three years, which will protect them from dismissal excluding dismissal for just cause. The district superintendent must recommend the teacher for the Professional Service Contract following the initial contract. Currently, schools districts must compensate teachers based on their years of teaching experience and degrees held.[5] Basically this means that the school board must provide a pay raise based on the fact that the teacher has spent a year teaching within the district. Also, after the initial contract, a school district must renew an existing contract, excluding for just cause as defined in 1012.33(1)(a)[6], unless the district superintendent declares the teacher as unsatisfactory and informs the instructor of their insufficiencies. In effect, this affords teachers the benefit of tenure. As long as the teacher does not violate the stipulations of their contract to be dismissed, they will retain their job and be awarded with a salary raise. In a school district the size of Orange County, it is highly unlikely that Superintendent Ron Blocker would recognize a specific teacher’s deficiencies and recommend their dismissal.
Senate Bill 6 seeks to eliminate tenure in an effort to make the dismissal of poorly performing teachers more facile. The legislation proposed that teachers hired after July 1, 2010 would enter a probationary period of one school year as opposed to 97 days. The new contract policies only would apply to newly hired teachers because under current statute teachers are entitled to certain contracts which are inherently a property right and cannot be taken except in the case of eminent domain. In addition, the statute would be revised to require teachers to enter into annual contracts as opposed to the current contracts that may last three years. In the new plan, the teacher would then enter into annual contracts each year for the following four years. After the fifth year of employment, student-learning gains begin to play a role in the instructors continued employment. In order for a teacher to receive an annual contract, prior to their sixth year of employment, a teacher must be rated effective or highly effective two of the previous three years based on the revised evaluation standards. The definition of ‘just cause’ as grounds for dismissal would be expanded to include poor performance judged by a lack of student learning gains. These reformed contracts would not apply to teachers employed before July 1, 2010. For newly hired teachers, student-learning gains would represent a large portion of their performance review to determine their continued employment and compensation.[7]
Teacher Pay
Attracting highly skilled and motivated educators has only become a problem in recent years. With more jobs opportunities and more opportunities for higher education, many of our best and brightest are being recruited to other occupations. Many of the policies regarding teacher pay, advancement, and detainment were developed in the mid-1900’s during a different era. Sixty years ago, many educational and employment opportunities were still not available to women. Many of the nation’s most intelligent women were entering the field of education. Education faces a new difficulty of attracting high talent to the field.[8] Some of America’s smartest, inventive, and possibly effective educators are being drawn into the private sector with the promise of more money and advancement based on merit, not how long you’ve been at the job. In order to receive the Race to the Top grant money, the U.S. Department of Education believes teacher evaluations shouldn’t be solely based on student performance on an objective test but on multiple factors including student growth. The department does believe that student growth and performance should play a significant role in the evaluation and compensation process.[9] Current Florida law does not require teacher evaluations to be linked to any individual student growth but instead rely on other, many times subjective, criteria for evaluation. Principals of individual schools are required to evaluate instructors by observing the classroom activities multiple times throughout the school year. They take into consideration how well the teacher manages the classroom, their knowledge of the subject area, and various other criteria. Many times these evaluations are purely subjective. Because the evaluation process is subjective, tenure exists to protect teachers.
If Senate Bill 6 were to become law, teacher pay would then become strongly connected to objectively measured student growth. This would radically change the current salary system. Professor of Educational Administration, Allen Odden, at the University of Wisconsin believes linking salary to performance allows for improved instruction, which in turn allows students to demonstrate superior levels of learning.[10] Instructor pay is currently determined by pre-existing salary schedules. Salary schedules are negotiated terms by which every instructional employee is paid. These schedules are adopted by each individual county school district and are revised virtually yearly. The schedule provides a map of what teachers can expect to be paid each year they teach based on degrees held and years of experience in service to the district or in the profession. For example, if a teacher has been with Orange County public schools for 3 years teaching the newspaper class but has spent an additional five years writing for the Orlando Sentinel, than they may fall into the schedule of compensation for someone who has been teaching with OCPS for eight years. The numerical amounts on the schedule are negotiated each year by the school board and the union.[11] Under Senate Bill 6, these salary schedules would be abolished and salary amount would no longer be determined far in advance. Senate Bill 6 would ban districts from using years in the classroom and degrees held in determining these schedules. However, Amendment 544536 by Senator Lynn passed in the Senate allowing school districts to take advance degrees into consideration during the performance evaluation process.[12] Instead of the previous salary schedules, each district would be required to adopt a salary schedule that implements raises based on teacher effectiveness. Determining whether or not a student has made learning gains in a particular year would be the greatest obstacle of implementing this bill. From the time the legislation would go into effect on July 1, 2010, school districts would have four school years to develop the means to measure student progress and teacher performance. Districts would be required to develop end of course assessments under Senate Bill 6. Each district would be forced to develop these assessments for areas not already tested by AP, FCAT, national industry certification exams, etc. Implementation of these assessments would not be required until the 2014-2015 school year, which is the same year the new salary schedules would be implemented. This legislation directly ties pay raises to performance. Under the proposed law, teacher evaluations would be based on no less than 50%, student-learning gains. These learning gains are to be judged on the previously mentioned end of course assessments. The other half would continue to consist of various factors including the principal’s evaluation, subject mastery and classroom discipline among others.
It is commonly understood that students come from a variety of different backgrounds. Students come from different socio-economic backgrounds as well as different schools and teachers whom the current teacher could have no effect over. This bill recognizes this and accounts for it. Teachers would not be judged on their student’s intelligence but whether or not they have made any learning gains in the previous years. The bill requires teachers to be judged as: Highly effective, effective, needs improvement, or unsatisfactory. These terms, as well as ‘learning-gain’, are not specifically defined in the legislation. Teachers who receive an eighth grade student who only performs at a third grade level would not be required to bring them up five grade levels in one school year. If the teacher brings that particular student up to a fourth grade level, then the student has demonstrated learning gains under this teacher. The requirements for the four categories of ratings for teachers have not yet been determined. My best guess would say that a teacher who brings a student up one or two levels would be rated effective while a teacher who brings the student up multiple levels or even up to their current grade level would be rated as highly effective. This bill acknowledges the fact that all students are not equal and teachers should not be judged based on the assumption they are. One of the major goals of the Race to the Top program and of Senate Bill 6 is to reward excellent teachers with higher pay and to attract some of the best and brightest to the profession. In theory, under this legislation, salaries of good teachers would rise much more quickly than under the current law. Ineffective teachers would be much easier to identify and helped or eventually removed from our Florida classrooms. This section of the bill is an attempt to recruit and retain quality teachers while rewarding them with higher salaries.
Struggling Schools
One of the four requirements of the Race to the Top program is to turn around many of our most underperforming and ineffective public schools. While examining six of the lowest performing schools in the state (two in Miami, two in Jacksonville, and two in Orlando), it is observed that adequately staffing these schools has become an issue. These select schools sometimes see a turnover rate of nearly 50% per year. Many of those teachers, due to the critical need in high priority locations and subject areas, are uncertified and many times teaching out of their area of expertise.[13] Senate Bill 6 aims to tackle this issue by providing differentiated pay for various teacher assignments. One of the most sure fire ways to improve historically struggling schools is to place the best and most effective teachers in these locations. One of the main concerns voiced by the many teachers who contacted Representatives Eisnaugle and Horner’s offices was that teachers who taught in difficult locations or difficult assignments would suffer greatly under this legislation. Many said that they taught Exceptional Student Education (ESE) or English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and were terrified at the prospect of being judged based on the performance of these students. Many teachers said they took these positions because they viewed them as a challenge and potentially highly rewarding but they many times could only do so much for students who already faced many disadvantages in their learning. However, the bill directly acknowledges these concerns in lines 999-1015. The bill provides differentiated pay for teachers and administrators for three areas. First, the bill seeks to entice teachers to relocate to ‘high-priority’ locations by rewarding those select teachers with additional dollars on top of the base salaries. These ‘high-priority’ locations are defined in Florida Statute as located “in high-density, low-economic urban schools and low-density, low-economic rural schools.”[14] The statute also considers schools based on their percentage of students who qualify for the free lunch program and their faculty’s turnover rate.[15] The legislation also provides the extra pay for teachers who teach in teacher shortage areas such as math and science. The final provision of the differentiated pay section allows for extra money to be paid to teachers who take on additional academic responsibilities. This is the section many of the teachers who contacted our offices would fall into. Teachers who would receive this additional money could teach the ESE or ESOL classes as well as be department chairs and other additional positions. However, while an instructional employee would receive this differentiated pay at first, the continued additional pay would be dependent on their performance reviews. Hopefully the turnover rate will drop once teachers see their salary increase for taking on the toughest assignments in the state. We can also place certified teachers in their subject area due to the new contract and certification requirements.
Opposition to SB 6
The largest group that stood in opposition and tried to lobby legislators to vote against the bill was the Florida Educators Association, the largest teachers union in the state. Their main apprehensions with the bill included the new teaching certificate renewal requirements, the five percent hold back on their annual budget allocations, and the problems that may arise if students intentionally fail tests to harm their teacher. Current Florida law provides for two types of teaching certificates, temporary certificates and Professional Florida Educator’s Certificate (PFEC). To receive the professional certificate a teacher must graduate from a state-approved teacher preparation program and pass the Florida Teacher Certification Examination (FTCE). The professional certificate remains valid for five years and must be renewed to remain teaching in Florida public schools. If a teacher has graduated from one of the approved programs but has yet to pass the FTCE, they may receive a temporary teaching certificate. This certificate helps Florida schools fill otherwise empty teaching slots with teachers that have the education but have just not passed the test.[16]
Opponents of the legislation argue that Senate Bill 6 would add additional stress to teachers because of the change in policy regarding certification. Senate Bill 6 creates new requirements for renewal of certificates and testing of teachers to demonstrate their expertise in their subject. In addition, the legislation revises the specifications of the temporary contract to require that the teacher must pass a subject mastery assessment within the first year of teaching. Temporary contracts would only be valid for one year under the bill. Many students struggle to learn from teachers who are teaching a subject in which they are not certified. Lines 1406-1409 of the bill prohibit districts from placing new instructors in classes teaching math, science, or reading if they are not certified in that specific area of education.[17] Under this provision, students will no longer suffer from unqualified teachers attempting to educate them in a subject they are unfamiliar with. However, math and science are two subjects that suffer from a teacher shortage. This may prevent school districts from acquiring enough teachers certified in the subject to fill their classrooms. In theory, the critical teacher shortage areas should have less of a problem recruiting teachers once the differentiated pay begins to attract teachers to those subjects. Another concern with the new certification requirements reverts back to the issue of placing much more weight on student learning gains. Under the new legislation, teachers not rated as highly effective or effective four of the previous five years would lose their professional certification beginning in the 2014-2015 school year. Again, to be considered as an effective teacher, the specific teacher’s students have to demonstrate any amount of learning gains. If a majority of students in a five-year period under this teacher do not show any amount of learning gains, this teacher does not belong in our classrooms and should not remain certified in our state. In order for our schools to produce top-notch students, we must continuously employ premier teachers.
Many opponents of the bill also exclaim that this legislation is an unfunded mandate that would put local districts in a very difficult position in the face of massive budget cuts. This is based in the fact that five percent of a districts annual allocation must be set aside to fund the development of end of course exams, pay teachers who qualify for the differential pay, and to fund the raises that effective teachers would receive. Many of these costs would be funded with Race for the Top money if Florida were to receive the award during the second phase. If not, it is argued that this capital would come from the elimination of raises based solely on tenure and degrees. One of the other major arguments asserts that some students may purposely fail tests once they become aware of the ramifications of their scores. The new end of course exams would act much like the FCAT currently does. Students must past them to advance to the next grade and to graduate. Also, because the bill requires an examination of learning gains over a two to three year period, an accurate portrayal of the instructor’s effectiveness will emerge. Evaluating individual student gains and then using that data to provide an overall picture of the teacher’s effectiveness should eliminate any ramification the student’s score may have on the performance review. Senate Bill 6 provides an overhaul of the current education system in Florida. Anytime legislation this comprehensive is proposed, garnering support will be difficult.
The Journey of Senate Bill 6
Senator Thrasher, the new head of the Republican Party of Florida, filed Senate Bill 6 on March 1, one day before the regular session began. That same day the legislation was referred to the Education Pre-K-12 and Policy & Steering Committee on Ways and Means. While in the Education Pre-K – 12 Committee, a committee substitute bill was adopted. The committee substitute addressed some of the basic concerns and refined portions of the language of the bill. It passed with a vote of 6-2. During the next stop, the Policy & Steering Committee introduced a substitute for the substitute adopted by the previous committee. This committee substitute provided much more significant changes than the previous. Much controversy had arisen regarding the constitutionality of the millage levy in the original bill version. This would have required local school districts to raise property taxes to fund their schools if they refused to participate in the new reforms. The language was completely dumped from the bill. This substitute also clarified the fact that any raises received from the performance reviews would be in addition to other increases in salary due to cost of living or other reasons. Perhaps the largest change in this version of the bill from the previous dealt with which part of teacher pay would be affected by performance reviews tied to student learning gains. The original bill directly tied 50% of teacher annual salaries to demonstrated student learning gains. This substitute revised that particular language to require that raises to instructor salaries be based on performance reviews. Of those performance reviews, 50% must be based on student learning gains. This substitute to the substitute was recorded favorably by a vote of 15-8. The legislation was placed on special order calendar and voted on the floor just 24 days after its filing date. The bill passed 21-17. Senators Dean, Dockery, Jones, and Villalobos (all Republicans) voted against their party on Senate Bill 6. Senators Gardiner, R and Senator Rich, D were both absent for the vote. The bill was then sent to the House of Representatives. The original house bill emerged as a Proposed Committee Bill out of the PreK-12 Policy Committee. The House version was then sponsored by Representative Legg and was numbered House Bill 7189. The House version was referred to the Education Policy Council. Before the bill could reach its next hearing, major news came from the Federal government.
On March 29, 2010 it was announced that Tennessee and Delaware would be receiving the Race to the Top grant from the Obama administration. Florida placed fourth in the competition for the award. Both Tennessee and Delaware have enacted new reform to meet the standards set forth by the Department of Education and gathered support from both lawmakers and education unions. Their recently passed reforms consist of very similar policies set forth by Senate Bill 6. Both states enacted plans to tie teacher pay to their student’s performance. Delaware acknowledged the requirement of the plan to reverse each state’s lowest performing schools. Similar to Florida’s differentiated pay plan, Delaware intends to reward teachers and administrators financially who undertake the challenge of educating in the lowest performing schools. One aspect that really damaged Florida’s application was the lack of support from all parties involved in the reform. Florida failed to garner support from the teacher unions, which was a requirement from the Department of Education.[18] After this announcement many lawmakers began pointing the finger at unions for not backing their proposals and the unions directed the blame back at lawmakers for not bringing them to the table to work out the discrepancies within the legislation to reach unanimous support. This decision dealt a major blow to the morale of the majority party but the reforms were still viewed as essential to be a contender for the second phase of the program. The bill was recorded favorably after a nearly eight-hour committee hearing on party line votes. Many members of the public testified in front of the committee voicing their opposition to the bill and many divulged personal stories from the classroom to help their case against the bill. The bill was on its way to the final stop in the legislature on the House floor. After the first reading on the House floor on April 7th, HB 7189 was laid on the table and substituted for CS/CS/SB 6 and scheduled to be voted on the very next day. Many amendments were filed for Senate Bill 6 during the second reading. Most of these amendments were filed by Democrats and ranged in topic from requiring each member of the Legislature to serve nine weeks in a classroom[19] to reinstating pay based on amount of years served in the school.[20] Every single amendment was voted down. The main reasoning for this was if a single word of the bill were changed, it would have to be sent back to the Senate to be voted on again. This was the last thing the majority office wanted due to the massive media coverage the bill and its opposition were receiving. Before the debate on SB 6 commenced, the House took on two other education reform bills, SB 4 and SJR 2. Senate Bill 4 raises the standards for public school graduation by requiring high school students to take Biology, Geometry, Algebra II, and Chemistry or Physics. This bill also discontinued the practice of administering the FCAT to high school students.[21] This bill helped fill the requirement for the Race to the Top requirements of raising education standards. This bill passed near unanimously. Senate Joint Resolution 2 required an amendment to be placed on the ballot in November to revise the class size amendment passed in 2002. The bill saw some controversy over the language of the amendment because Democrats believed it to be biased and would lead many voters to vote yes even if they may not agree with the policy.[22] The bill passed on near party line votes. Debate on the final piece of the comprehensive education reform, Senate Bill 6, lasted until nearly 2:30 in the morning before the final vote was recorded. Virtually every Democratic House member stood up and spoke their piece during the debate period. Speaker Creatul limited each member’s debate to 15 minutes. Select Republicans gave a small speech as well. Debate ended with Speaker Designate Cannon having the final voice. The bill passed on a vote of 64-55. In total, 11 Republicans voted against the bill and against their party.[23] The sweeping education reform legislation had passed through the legislature and headed to Governor Crist’s desk.
Unfortunate Death
Governor Crist faced a deadline of one week to decide whether or not he would chose to sign the bill into law or veto it and kill the bill completely. This bill reached the governor during a difficult time in his race for the Senate. Recent polls have shown his Republican opponent Marco Rubio gaining a substantial lead in the race and speculation had begun as to whether or not Crist would run as an Independent. If he signed the bill, he would likely regain minimal Republican support. However, if he vetoed the bill and ran as an independent, he would likely receive much support from more moderate Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Many believed he would sign the bill simply because he previously stated that he supported the reform. Further into the week, news surfaced that he was considering a veto and was receiving thousands of phone calls and emails from teachers pleading him to veto the legislation. On April 15 Governor Crist announced that he did not believe this was the best policy for Floridians and vetoed the bill. Teachers, unions, Democrats, and school districts applauded the decision while many Republicans condemned the decision. Speaker Designate Cannon released a letter to Governor Crist saying that he would no longer be able to endorse his campaign for US Senate because of disagreements on policy.[24] Many other Republican legislators withdrew their endorsements as well. I believe this decision was politically motivated. His support in the Republican primary was dwindling against the surging star Marco Rubio. This decision would benefit his campaign greatly in a statewide general election between Rubio, himself, and Democrat Kendrick Meek. Senate Bill 6 died by a few strokes of Governor Crist’s pen. Florida will likely lose in the phase 2 selection of Race to the Top and receive no additional federal funding for education. Florida will face even greater budget shortfalls in education in the 2011 session and will not have federal stimulus dollars to help cover portions of the shortfall. Even though the bill failed this session, Republican legislators have vowed to return these reforms to the Legislature next session.
Performance Pay in a Competing Nation
Since the early 2000’s, England has implemented a pay for performance system for their public educators. State teachers in England are placed on a salary schedule much like ours. England, however, offers multiple salary schedules. Their pay rates differ by which part of the country one teaches in and the quality of the teacher. All teachers begin on the main pay scale at the first level unless they have other teaching experience or relevant experience. Teachers advance to the next level of the main pay scale as long as they demonstrate satisfactory performance and teachers whose performance is excellent are eligible to move up two spots on the pay scale. Once a teacher reaches the top of the main scale, they are able to cross over to the upper pay scale but any further raises are performance based. There are further scales for excellent teachers, which again are based on performance reviews.[25] Teachers are required to sit down with the administration and set target goals for the coming year. This system has seen some issues in its infancy but has already been producing many positive outcomes. Many young teachers viewed the ability to advance through different pay scales as a huge incentive to stay in the field of education. It was also reported that the performance management system has assisted schools greatly. Teachers are able to develop goals that address the issues their students face. It is reported that many schools have witnessed improvements in their students due to the better goal setting.[26] Their system aims to create a profession that will “attract excellent graduates, and to ensure retaining highly motivated and committed teachers, fairly reward teachers, and to ensure that high quality performance management and professional development are available to all teachers to help them to improve standards.”[27] Their pay for performance system has already demonstrated improved teacher recruitment and retention as well as producing higher quality students. These are many of the same goals of the Race to the Top program and education reform being enacted around the nation.
American public education is falling behind on the global scale. While this bill may not be perfect, it is a step in working towards the final goal of improving classrooms for our students. Perhaps we should look at what Tennessee has done to garner the support of the unions and provide for new education policies to ensure American schools can stay competitive. Maybe we should acknowledge some of the success England has had with their multiple salary schedules based on performance reviews. Either way, pay for performance does work and is the first major step in improving our teacher and student quality here in America. A better way to assess teachers and reward them with higher salaries or ensure they no longer teach in our public classrooms must be put into place. We also need to turn around our lowest performing schools to guarantee that we provide equal opportunity regardless of location, race, and socioeconomic status. While performance pay for education is dead this session, it will be back next year. With Republicans maintaining their large majority and the likely hood that conservative favorite Bill McCollum will become Governor, we will likely see similar reforms passed into law next year. In order for America to remain competitive globally and to provide innovation to lead us further into the 21st century, we must reform education to produce higher quality students who can successfully lead America into the future.
[1] “Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context,” Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Statistics, September 2009.
[2] “American Reinvestment and Recovery Act,” Recovery.gov, April 24, 2010, http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx, (accessed April 24, 2010)
[3] “Race to the Top,” U.S. Department of Education, April 16, 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html, (accessed April 24, 2010)
[4] 1012.33, F.S.
[5] 1012.33(3)(g), F.S.
[6] 1012.33(1)(a), F.S. ‘just cause’ defined as: immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude.
[7] CS/CS/SB 6, 2010 Regular Session
[8] Hess, Frederick, “Revitalizing Teacher Education by Revisiting Our Assumptions About Teaching” Journal of Teacher Education, 2009. Vol. 60 Issue 5 pg 450.
[9] “Race to the Top Frequently Asked Questions,” April 20, 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/faq.pdf, (accessed April 24, 2010)
[10] McCabe, Melissa, “Salary Adjustments”, Education Week, Jan. 6, 2005. Vol. 24 Issue 17, p24-25
[11] Email correspondence with Mr. Scott Howat, Director, Orange County Public Schools Legislative and Congressional Relations
[12] Amendment 544536 to CS/CS/SB 6 by Senator Lynn, 2010 Regular Session
[13] Ben F. Nelms, On the Front Line: Preparing Teachers with Struggling Schools in Mind. English Education, Vol. 36, No. 2, Teacher Education in Language Arts and Literacy in the Era of "No Child Left Behind" (Jan., 2004), pp. 153-167
[14] 1012.07(1), F.S.
[15] Ibid.
[16] “Educator Certification,” Florida Department of Education, 2005, http://www.fldoe.org/edcert/level2.asp, (accessed April 15, 2010)
[17] CS/CS/SB 6, 2010 Regular Session.
[18] Neil King, “Only Two States Win Race to Top,” Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2010.
[19] Amendment 073939 to CS/CS/SB 6 by Representative Bullard
[20] Amendment 718019 to CS/CS/SB 6 by Representative Jones
[21] CS/CS/SB 4, 2010 Regular Session.
[22] SJR 2, 2010 Regular Session.
[23] “CS/CS/SB 6,” Florida House of Representatives, http://www.myfloridahous
e.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=44352&SessionId=64, (accessed April 20, 2010).
[24] Aaron Deslatte, “Cannon’s Letter to Crist,” Central Florida Political Pulse, The Orlando Sentinel, April 16, 2010, http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/
2010/04/cannons-letter-to-crist.html, (accessed April 17, 2010).
[25] “Understanding teachers’ pay leaflet,” teachernet.gov.uk, November 24 2009, http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=14525, (accessed April 19 2010).
[26] David Marsden and Richard Belfield, “Performance pay for teachers: Is it working?,” Cetrepiece Summer 2005, http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CP183.pdf.
[27] Dr. Anne Wright, “School Teachers’ Review Body Nineteenth Report – 2010,” http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/14784/STRB%2019th%20report%202010[1].pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment