According to Chalkbeat Colorado, Denver is set to strip 47 teachers of their tenure because they received two consecutive ineffective ratings.
The state law passed in 2010 called S. 191 requires that teachers be evaluated annually, with student scores counting for 50% of the teachers’ ratings. The law was written by State Senator Michael Johnston, who spent two years as a Teach for America recruit. Johnston predicted that his law would cause every teacher, every principal, and every school in Colorado to be “great.” There is no evidence that it has had that effect.
DPS did not provide a list of the schools at which the 47 teachers set to lose tenure taught. But the district did provide some information about the teachers and their students:
— Twenty-eight of the 47 teachers set to lose tenure — or 60 percent — have more than 15 years of experience. Ten of those teachers — 21 percent — have 20 years or more of experience.
Overall, about 33 percent of non-probationary DPS teachers have more than 15 years experience, and about 14 percent have more than twenty years of experience.
— The majority of the 47 teachers — 26 of them — are white. Another 14 are Latino, four are African-American, two are multi-racial and one is Asian.
About three-quarters of all DPS teachers — probationary and non-probationary — are white.
— Thirty-one of the 47 teachers set to lose tenure — or 66 percent — teach in “green” or “blue” schools, the two highest ratings on Denver’s color-coded School Performance Framework. Only three — or 6 percent — teach in “red” schools, the lowest rating.
About 60 percent of all DPS schools are “green” or “blue,” while 14 percent are “red.”
— Thirty-eight of the 47 teachers — or 81 percent — teach at schools where more than half of the students qualify for federally subsidized lunches, an indicator of poverty….
Pam Shamburg, executive director of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, said the union has long been concerned about this provision of Senate Bill 191 because teachers who are demoted to probationary status lose their due process rights.
She’s also worried it will lead to higher teacher turnover. Ten of the 47 DPS teachers set to lose non-probationary status have submitted notices of resignation or retirement, officials said, though nine of them did so before learning they would lose tenure.
“This happening to 47 teachers has a much bigger impact,” Shamburg said. “There will be hundreds of teachers who know about this. They’ll say if they can do that to (that teacher), they can do that to me.”

There’s anti-high-salary ageism at play here.
This manifestly evil stupid system was modeled on the one that Michelle Rhee and her stooge “Human Capital Chief” Jason Kamras implemented back in 2009 — where it was called IMPACT, which included students’ test scores are the primary component.
In this scenario, a younger (read: lower-paid) teacher gets more lenient treatment than a veteran (read: higher-paid) teacher. When the same teachers receive the identical “minimally effective” rating, well … some teachers (the older ones) are simply more “minimally effective” than others (the younger).
The Post’s anti-Rhee education writer Bill Turque — Rhee banned all staff from talking to him while she was in power — got wind of this, and wrote about it. Turque was also re-written in the middle of the night by his pro-Rhee editor Jo-Ann Armao without his consent. This story was told in one of my first posts on this blog HERE:
Here’s Turque’s story about ageism in the IMPACT implementation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-schools-insider/post/some-teachers-more-minimally-effective-than-others/2011/06/10/AGY2iEPH_blog.html
“Some teachers more ‘minimally effective’ than others?”
By Bill Turque June 10, 2011
——————————————–
BILL TURQUE of WashPost:
“It now appears that some teachers — most likely younger ones — will get a reprieve from the two-strikes-and-out rule established in 2009. Earlier this week, Human Capital Chief and IMPACT architect Jason Kamras told principals that if they had young teachers with promise who were headed for a second poor evaluation, they could apply for exceptions. (but not the higher-paid veterans, of course, JACK)
“ ‘We recognize that in some cases, a principal might want to retain a second-year teacher who has received minimally effective ratings in each of his or her first two years of teaching but has demonstrated improvement and the potential to become an effective teacher in the following year,’ Kamras said.
“ ‘You know your teachers best, so we would like your recommendation on whether a new teacher in your building should receive an exception. If you would like to retain such an individual, please write a letter explaining why this individual should receive an exception to the separation policy.’
“Kamras said in an e-mail Friday that there is ‘a sound, research-based justification’ for exceptions.
“ ‘A wide body of education research indicates that the learning curve for new teachers is quite steep. The policy you cite above is an effort to take this into account. If a principal can demonstrate that a twice-Minimally Effective teacher has shown significant growth in her/his first two years in the profession and is likely to become Effective or Highly Effective the following year, we will consider granting the teacher an additional year to improve. TEACHERS AT LATER POINTS IN THEIR CAREERS, however, are EXPECTED TO BE BEYOND THE STEEP PORTION OF THE LEARNING CURVE.’ “(CAPITALS mind, JACK))
“Kamras said Henderson will make final decisions by July 15.
“This is UNLIKELY TO SIT WELL WITH OLDER TEACHERS, many of whom already believe that Rhee and Henderson SEE IMPACT AS A MEANS TO USHER THEM OUT IN FAVOR OF YOUNGER RECRUITS FROM ALTERNATIVE TRAINING PROGRAMS WHOSE ALUMNI ARE HEAVILY EMBEDDED IN DCPS MANAGEMENT: Teach for America and D.C. Teaching Fellows. Henderson — like Kamras and Rhee, a TFA vet — may well get a question or two about this at her confirmation hearing next week from council members wondering why the rules are being changed in the middle of the game.”
——————————————–
This just provides an opportunity for “corporate ed. reform” administrators (the “Deasy-ites” as those appointed during John Deasy’s reign were referred to in Los Angeles) to rid schools of teachers higher-paid veterans, of outspoken union activists or … oh I dunno … the ones refused to sleep with the principal when propositioned:
SIMPLE: before DAY ONE of the school year, just stack those teachers roster with the kids most likely to score badly on standardized tests (less gifted, special ed kids being mainstreamed, or whatever) , or students whose track record indicates that they will disrupt the class, and thus, cause everyone in the class to perform badly on tests, as such disruption.
Then when the inevitable happens, and the teacher tries to protest, the administrator will say, “It’s a poor teachers who blames his students. A good teacher should be able to get results with any students. Excuse-makers like you don’t belong in teaching. YOU’RE FIRED!”
Of course, the above presumes that student test score “growth” is, in fact, a valid means for evaluating teacher effectiveness or competence, which it ain’t. Study after study after study has shown that this has never worked, and will never work, but it’s a good union buster and money-saver, so it keeps getting pushed.
LikeLike
“Pam Shamburg, executive director of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, said the union has long been concerned about this provision of Senate Bill 191 because teachers who are demoted to probationary status lose their due process rights.”
Perhaps the DCTA that represents over 3,000 members should challenge this law with teachers of standing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They need teachers like New York’s Sheri Lederman to go to court and fight this… and win, as the did. (And also funding for legal services, as Shari had help from her superstar lawyer husband who represented her for free):’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/05/10/a-master-teacher-went-to-court-to-challenge-her-low-evaluation-what-her-win-means-for-her-profession/
LikeLike
My first response was,” where is the lawsuit? ” I am not a litigious person, but I will fight to the end to save my reputation and career. I love being a teacher, and will not allow some reformer to take that away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These 47 teachers should hire a lawyer and question the legality of this law as a class action suit. I would think that the Sheri Lederman case from Long Island could help them by setting a precedent. And, as another commenter posted, issues of age discrimination could be relevant as well. Some older teachers in my school hired a lawyer when several of them in one department were singled out. They prevailed, as a result.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You must not forget now Pension debt fits into this picture. In April 2008 DPS took out $750 million in what are called Pension Certificates of Participation (PCOPs) through a financial instrument called variable rate debt obligations (VRDOs). In an oversimplification VRDOs are similar to CDOs (the mortgages that rocked the financial world) but use public money not mortgages. Remember back to April 2008. Bear Stearns failed; auction rate markets froze. DPS bonds were to be auctioned weekly. Fast forward to fall of 2008 and winter of 2009. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer, I.e. PUBLIC dollars were lost in the DPS pension fund due to this risky deal. If you fire long serving teachers, the payments are less resulting in less money coming out of the pension fund. The board voted unanimously for the deal; I was on the board. It is s very complicated story that has not yet been given its full due. Bottom line: DPS leaders gambled with public money and lost big. Getting rid of teachers before they reach their highest pension level helps stop some of the pension debt bleeding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for this information. Although it is complicated and specific to one city (state), there can be no doubt that the “pension” problem is being pulled out as a reason to portray public service workers and their unions as causes of the debts, never the people who viewed that money as a slush fund free of an obligation for due diligence.
LikeLike
Jeannie, did you leave Senator Michael Bennett and superintendent Tom Boasberg out of your comment for a reason? I think people should know their contribution to the Denver fiasco.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/business/06denver.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for putting in the link to the NYT article. Honestly, I’m not sure how to answer your question about Bennet and Boasberg. For years now I have tried to tell the truth about the bad financial leadership these two provided, but at this time in American politics, I greatly fear the Republican Party, nominee, agenda, and while still wishing to get the real story out, I am very convoluted about shining a bad light on Bennet. Donald Trump is beyond scary, and i find myself trying to find that delicate balance at this moment. I disagree with Yvonne (above). I think there is an enormous difference between Hillary and the Donald. To think of him as the leader of this country is truly unfathomable to me. And voting for a third party could easily make that more plausible. But you are right. Bennet and Boasberg crafted the deal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Transparency in this situation simply spotlights the fact that state after state is now playing with pension funds and firing “bad” long-term teachers. The connection between the two should be obvious to ALL.
LikeLike
Daryl Glenn, Bennett’s opponent is beyond extreme. Michael Bennett, who once worked as a private equity manager for Phil Anschutz, is otherwise progressive on so many other issues, just misguided on education. We can’t lose the Senate.
The House is a lost cause and so I am seriously considering voting for Republican Nicholas Morse who is running against Jared Polis. Regulars on this blog know Polis as the man who threw Diane’s book at her in a rage and tweeted “Diane Ravitch is an evil woman.” He is a leader in the education reform and privatization movement, and is completely inflexible on the issue.
I see him as a self-serving rich guy (2nd richest in Congress) who votes for congressional pay raises and tax breaks for the one percent to enrich himself. He shelters his money in failing charter schools. He supported fracking until a well was placed across the street from his country mansion. He claims to support the LGBT community and Latinos, but he refused to join the Democrats in their sit-in to support the Orlando victims. I researched why and discovered that he is mostly opposed to gun control, except when it’s popular (i.e. terrorist watch lists). He also does not support military spending when the military is the lifeline in rural America where factories are closed and jobs are scarce. He supports TTP, but doesn’t support farmers. He seems very closed to the pain of the people suffering in our rural communities. His opponent is not a career politician.
LikeLike
Personally, I think all this teacher-bashing is being promoted by politicians, and those in business who profit “HUGELY” by this kind of horrid actions.
It’s sick.
Vote 3rd Party.
LikeLike
Two points.
Agree SB191 is a bad bill. Using an end of year standardized test to measure what a student has learned or to rate a teacher is not accurate and is not how tests like PARCC were meant to be used. (1)
However, the online formative assessments that will soon replace end of year “big” tests, are not the answer either. (2) WHY? The new “competency based” assessments will be embedded in everyday “personalized” curriculum and will seamlessly collect hidden data. Unlike end of year tests that students can opt out of, there will be no way for students to opt out of everyday, data collecting curriculum / assessments. “With the end of the big test, gone will be the days of data poverty” (3). This online data is collected using hidden algorithms (4) and it is not just whether the student answers correctly, it is predictive data, and can be everything from mouse clicks, how long a student spends on a questions, where the mouse hovers, emotions etc. When combined with personal data in educational records and the state SDLS data base, this can become a very powerful tool to decide outcomes for students that they may not even see or know about (5) because these algorithms embedded when online are not regulated, not transparent.(6) (7)
It is imperative that the rush to online “personalized” education includes complete transparency as to what student data is being taken (including algorithms) and students/parents are given transparency and consent as to how their own data is used, shared. (FERPA does not cover algorithms.)
As for the Denver “Teachers Will Lose Their Tenure Because of Ratings System Based 50% on Test Scores”, because of legislation that passed, 2015-16 test scores cannot be used to evaluate student growth or district accountability in Colorado. (8) So Denver should not be using 2015-16 test scores to evaluate a teacher. Also, per the Chalkbeat article, Denver Public Schools uses its own rating system. “While many districts use a state-developed model teacher evaluation system created in response to Senate Bill 191, Denver uses a system of its own design.” Leading Effective Academic Practice, or LEAP http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2016/07/14/denver-public-schools-set-to-strip-nearly-50-teachers-of-tenure-protections-after-poor-evaluations/#.V5TMwo-cHIX
To see how Denver Public Schools LEAP measures teachers, this LEAP FAQ is VERY helpful. (9)
What factors are included in the final rating?
For 2015-16, LEAP ratings
are calculated based on points assigned for each of the following components:
50% Professional Practice, including: observations by school leaders, teacher leaders and/or peer observers o professionalism, which assesses the work teachers do outside of instructional time, individually and collaboratively o student perception surveys, only for grades 3 and up
50% Student Growth, as determined by SLOs and district growth
How is student growth data counted this year?
State law requires that 50% of final ratings for teachers be based on student growth. However, due to legislation, DPS is not able to use state measures for 2015‐16. Therefore, this year’s student growth is calculated using 45% SLO performance combined with 5% district growth.
How were Student Perception Survey (SPS) points calculated?
By looking at a teacher’s SPS results relative to the performance of similar teachers over the past two years, we are able to assign SPS performance levels ranging from ‘Unsatisfactory to Well Above Average’ within each of the three categories of Facilitates Learning, Supports Students, & High Expectations. By doing this, we are able to differentiate the level of performance of teachers within a similar teaching context across the different dimensions of SPS and award points based on this comparison. Please refer to the SPS Point Allocation document posted on the LEAP website to learn more about how SPS points are calculated for LEAP Professional Practice scoring.
I wonder, do teachers have access to the reviews, observations and perception surveys that were used to rate them? Are these observations fair or accurate?
References
1. PARCC Technical Advisor Says PARCC Is an “Evolving Enterprise” and panel says test used for wrong purpose https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/parcc-technical-advisor-says-parcc-is-an-evolving-enterprise/ and partial transcript https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7epgdVXe0gKVUpCZmNmTGFvRWM/view?pli=1
2. USDoE on increased use of online personalized learning, or Competency Based Ed, CBE http://www.ed.gov/oii-news/competency-based-learning-or-personalized-learning
3. End of the big test, Moving to Competency-Based Policy “Initiated in the dark ages of data poverty, state tests were asked to do all these jobs….But it is no longer necessary or wise to ask one test to do so many jobs when better, faster, cheaper data is available” http://gettingsmart.com/2015/05/the-end-of-the-big-test-moving-to-competency-based-policy/
4. When Personalized Learning Gets Too Personal: Google Complaint Exposes Student Privacy Concerns http://www.recode.net/2015/12/9/11621282/when-personalized-learning-gets-too-personal-google-complaint-exposes
5. Your Data Footprint Is Affecting Your Life In Ways You Can’t Even Imagine Job decisions, college admissions, health care decisions: All are now being fundamentally altered by your big data, and you might not even know. http://www.fastcoexist.com/3057514/your-data-footprint-is-affecting-your-life-in-ways-you-cant-even-imagine
6. The FTC is worried about algorithmic transparency and you should be too http://www.pcworld.com/article/2908372/the-ftc-is-worried-about-algorithmic-transparency-and-you-should-be-too.html
7. Forget privacy, probability is the new nightmare http://www.netopia.eu/forget-privacy-probability-is-the-new-nightmare/
8. HB15-1323 Colo legislation test scores https://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/hb_15-1323_accountability_guidance
9. Denver Public Schools LEAP FAQ http://leap.datausa.com/LEAP/media/Main/PDFs/LEAP-EOY-2015-16-FAQ-FINAL.pdf
LikeLike
“Something is rotten in Denver.” Business has used similar tactics to cheat senior employees out of pensions, particularly white collar employees. Hedge funds have played similar games with union employees in cash strapped areas like Michigan. Unions are supposed to protect public workers from such injustice. Unfortunately, many governors that have mismanaged its state obligations to workers (NJ comes to mind) are looking to violate due process laws, and test and punish policy is a convenient tool. It does not matter that the whole VAM ideology is totally bogus. The teachers should consult with lawyers to figure out their best tactics and options.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When school districts hire businessmen or women, the first priority is often the bottom line. “Education Policies ” then evolve from that #1 goal. I believe getting rid of professional educators is an integral part of that strategy as is trying to figure out how to get rid of public pensions. In Denver and Colorado this is very much a bipartisan issue.
LikeLike
They can’t stand to see that money, NOT in THEIR pockets. There is no thought for the future…just me me me…now now NOW!
LikeLiked by 1 person
A teacher living near here just quit. Her students rated her the best in the school. She worked her posterior off to do a great job. A fellow teacher never took anything home ad nauseum and he had a higher rating than did she. Politicians are killing education. Small wonder that our best teachers cannot wait to retire, advise prospective people not to enter the “profession”. Our country is and will continue to pay a high price for this political interference.
LikeLike
No good deed goes unpunished.
LikeLike
These teachers need to pool their resources and find a good lawyer.
LikeLike
Good idea Linda. Here in L.A. no law firms want to go against the school district and there is no free press so no one knows about it. United Teachers Los Angeles is the second largest local in the nation and is sitting on $12 million in its strike fund but they won’t spend it on defending 5,000 career teachers. Instead they spend it on 1,000 charter school scabs. UTLA is the only local that does not participate in the group legal services available to other locals in the State. Legal action takes money.
LikeLike
Every teacher who is unfavorably evaluated on the basis of students’ standardized test scores should vigorously oppose the evaluation, citing the American Statistical Association’s (ASA) authoritative, detailed, seven-page VAM-slam “Statement on Using Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment” as the basis to have public employment boards and courts toss out any test-based unfavorable evaluation.
Moreover, a copy of the VAM-slam ASA Statement should be posted on the union bulletin board at every school site throughout our nation and should be explained to every teacher by their union at individual site faculty meetings so that teachers are aware of what it says about how invalid it is to use standardized test results to evaluate teachers.
Even the anti-public school, anti-union Washington Post newspaper said this about the ASA Statement: “You can be certain that members of the American Statistical Association, the largest organization in the United States representing statisticians and related professionals, know a thing or two about data and measurement. The ASA just slammed the high-stakes ‘value-added method’ (VAM) of evaluating teachers that has been increasingly embraced in states as part of school-reform efforts. VAM purports to be able to take student standardized test scores and measure the ‘value’ a teacher adds to student learning through complicated formulas that can supposedly factor out all of the other influences and emerge with a valid assessment of how effective a particular teacher has been. THESE FORMULAS CAN’T ACTUALLY DO THIS (emphasis added) with sufficient reliability and validity, but school reformers have pushed this approach and now most states use VAM as part of teacher evaluations.”
The ASA Statement points out the following and many other failings of testing-based VAM:
> “VAMs typically measure correlation, not causation: Effects – positive or negative – attributed to a teacher may actually be caused by other factors that are not captured in the model.”
> “Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions.”
“System-level conditions” include everything from overcrowded and underfunded classrooms to district-and site-level management of the schools and to student poverty.
Fight back! Never, never, never give up!
LikeLike
“Moreover, a copy of the VAM-slam ASA Statement should be posted on the union bulletin board at every school site throughout our nation and should be explained to every teacher by their union at individual site faculty meetings so that teachers are aware of what it says about how invalid it is to use standardized test results to evaluate teachers.”
Well, in Denver anywhere from one third to one half of the schools are now non-union.
Seventy plus charters, close to 40 so-called innovation schools (new and turnarounds) staffed by at will employees. So when teachers agree to work there, there are no protections. Part of the “sell” of being autonomous. THEY have thought of almost everything!
LikeLike
This has already happened to 5,000 veteran teachers in Los Angeles but it seems that no one noticed except for those of us who have lost our jobs, least of all NEA and AFT. New York City has similar numbers. In L.A., United Teachers Los Angeles actually assists by bullying teachers “out of the profession.”
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Mister Journalism: "Reading, Sharing, Discussing, Learning" and commented:
Denver: 47 Teachers Will Lose Their Tenure Because of Ratings System Based 50% on Test Scores
by dianeravitch
According to Chalkbeat Colorado, Denver is set to strip 47 teachers of their tenure because they received two consecutive ineffective ratings.
The state law passed in 2010 called S. 191 requires that teachers be evaluated annually, with student scores counting for 50% of the teachers’ ratings. The law was written by State Senator Michael Johnston, who spent two years as a Teach for America recruit. Johnston predicted that his law would cause every teacher, every principal, and every school in Colorado to be “great.” There is no evidence that it has had that effect.
DPS did not provide a list of the schools at which the 47 teachers set to lose tenure taught. But the district did provide some information about the teachers and their students:
— Twenty-eight of the 47 teachers set to lose tenure — or 60 percent — have more than 15 years of experience. Ten of those teachers — 21 percent — have 20 years or more of experience.
Overall, about 33 percent of non-probationary DPS teachers have more than 15 years experience, and about 14 percent have more than twenty years of experience.
— The majority of the 47 teachers — 26 of them — are white. Another 14 are Latino, four are African-American, two are multi-racial and one is Asian.
About three-quarters of all DPS teachers — probationary and non-probationary — are white.
— Thirty-one of the 47 teachers set to lose tenure — or 66 percent — teach in “green” or “blue” schools, the two highest ratings on Denver’s color-coded School Performance Framework. Only three — or 6 percent — teach in “red” schools, the lowest rating.
About 60 percent of all DPS schools are “green” or “blue,” while 14 percent are “red.”
— Thirty-eight of the 47 teachers — or 81 percent — teach at schools where more than half of the students qualify for federally subsidized lunches, an indicator of poverty….
Pam Shamburg, executive director of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, said the union has long been concerned about this provision of Senate Bill 191 because teachers who are demoted to probationary status lose their due process rights.
She’s also worried it will lead to higher teacher turnover. Ten of the 47 DPS teachers set to lose non-probationary status have submitted notices of resignation or retirement, officials said, though nine of them did so before learning they would lose tenure.
“This happening to 47 teachers has a much bigger impact,” Shamburg said. “There will be hundreds of teachers who know about this. They’ll say if they can do that to (that teacher), they can do that to me.”
dianeravitch | July 24, 2016 at 10:00 am | Categories: Denver, Teacher Evaluations, Teacher Tenure | URL: http://wp.me/p2odLa-eQ1
LikeLike
This is sad, really sad. Hopefully we can find a better way to give the children what they really need, PARENTS who care enough to do whatever is necessary to educate their children and TEACHERS who creatively stimulating their brains.
LikeLike