Cerf Gets Serious

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Share on facebook
Share on twitter

This afternoon Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf gave a briefing on the Christie Administration’s five-part tenure reform proposal. Legislative language will be released in two weeks. Here’s the skinny; I’ll fill in the details tomorrow.

1) Teacher Evaluations: currently teacher evaluations are subject to collective bargaining in local districts. According to the proposal, the Department of Education will craft a state-wide evaluation form that bases 50% of a teacher’s rating on student growth (measured by standardized tests) and 50% on best practices. This new instrument will not be subject to negotiations between local unions and school districts. Other tenured employees – principals, child study team members, custodians, secretaries – will be unaffected by this legislation.

2) Tenure: teachers will be judged to be highly effective, effective, partially effective, or ineffective. These measurements will be wholly based on student learning. A teacher will be awarded tenure after three consecutive years of effective teaching. If a previously-tenured teacher amasses two consecutive years of ineffective ratings, he or she will revert to non-tenure status.

3) Mutual Consent: currently teachers can be placed in a school regardless of whether the building principal considers that teacher to be effective. The proposed legislation eliminates that practice. If a school within a district closes or is replaced, both the teacher and principals must mutually agree on a teacher’s placement within that school. If either party rejects the placement, then the teacher retains employment rights within the district for a full year and the district must assist the teacher in placement. If, however, the teacher is still not placed within a year then he or she will go on unpaid leave.

4) “Last In, First Out” (LIFO): under current law, when a district lays off teachers due to shrinking enrollment or funds then seniority dictates the order of job loss and it is illegal to consider teacher effectiveness. This proposal mandates that districts take into account teacher effectiveness when deciding on lay-offs.

5) Compensation: all districts base teacher compensation on years served and degrees earned. This new proposal dictates that the primary factor in salary is student growth. Teachers would also receive higher salaries by teaching in high-needs districts, teaching in hard-to-staff disciplines (math, science, special education), and by graduating from a teaching college with proven methods that advance student learning.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest


  • kallikak, February 17, 2011 @ 6:06 am Reply

    What a convoluted mess!

    The only guaranteed outcome is that skillful administrators can game these rules to deliver a consistently low-cost—but not necessarily high-quality—teaching staff. And they will have to, as the Governor and Legislature progressively starve our schools for funding (see Texas and Wisconsin for other, more crude examples of similar approaches).

    If we add in the impact of the likely “compromise” between the Sweeney and Christie benefits' funding proposals, teachers will face a future of both sharply reduced take-home pay and job security.

    Do we really expect to attract more-skilled candidates to replace our supposedly inferior incumbents when the newcomers face these prospects?

    I fear that our public schools will be unrecognizable in a few years—and not in a good way.

  • Lefty, February 17, 2011 @ 1:17 pm Reply

    What honest observer believes this is truly about teacher quality rather than budgetary scapegoating?

    Who inside education is deluded enough to think that we are ready to devise performance measures of wildly complicated processes that are fraud-proof?

    Who thinks the resulting environment will improve our ability to attract and retain the best talent?

    Ask the best teachers with a few years of experience what they think of it. Those with some time in are wanting to get out before they are hurt. Those with a lot of time in wish they could, because they expect to get screwed for devoting a career toward holding up their end of a bargain made decades ago.

    Tenure was designed to protect teachers from this type of politics – so that we could have a stable public education system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *