BILL SUMMARY for HB09-1065
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
|Votes: View--> ||Action Taken: |
|Moved amendment L.016 (Attachment C), as amended. |
Moved an amendment to amendment L.016 to change "t
Pass Without Objection
02:19 PM -- House Bill 09-1065
Senator Spence, sponsor of House Bill 09-1065, distributed amendment L.016 (Attachment C). The bill, which creates an educator identifier pilot program, was before the committee for action only. The bill was heard, and testimony taken, on March 12, 2009.
Senator Spence walked the committee through the amendment, saying it would change the bill from an educator identifier pilot program to an educator identifier system. She described what the data obtained from the identifier system may not be used for, saying it may not be used to negatively sanction individual teachers, school districts, or teacher preparation programs. Senator Spence explained that the data may be used for teacher preparation program improvement. She noted that the amendment requires that the system comply with state and federal privacy laws.
Senator Spence continued her description of the amendment, reading the language on the bottom of page two of the amendment and the top of page three.
Senator Spence responded to committee questions about the amendment. Senator Hudak asked about the language in the amendment, which differs from an amendment that was discussed in negotiations around the bill (amendment L.014, which was not offered, so was not distributed). President Groff explained where the language from the amendment came from, and said it was related to guidance from the U.S. Department of Education. Conversation between Senator Hudak and President Groff ensued. Senator Spence talked about the negotiations and conversations behind the amendment.
Senator Romer asked for further clarification about the U.S. Department of Education guidance. President Groff responded to Senator Romer's questions. Committee discussion about the amendment and previous discussions around the bill ensued.
Senator Hudak expressed concern about going forward with amendment L.016 without the input of the stakeholders.
Rich Wenning, Colorado Department of Education (CDE), came to the table to respond to committee questions about the amendment. He said CDE supports aligning the bill as closely as possible with U.S. Department of Education guidance related to the recovery act and commented on the state's position relative to the Race to the Top. He talked about the specific metrics that states must report on and the clear expectations that have been delivered on the systems to measure teacher effectiveness. He read from the U.S. Department of Education guidance.
Mr. Wenning responded to committee questions about the amendments and how they align with the guidance.
Dan Daly, representing the Colorado Education Association, came to the table to react to the amendment. He said he had not seen the amendment, so was unable to react to it specifically. Mr. Daly expressed support for the negotiated amendment L.014. Mr. Daly responded to a question from Senator King about the definition of "qualified and effective." Discussion between Senator King and Mr. Daly on this issue ensued.
Committee discussion continued around whether there was guidance from the federal government defining an "effective teacher." President Groff said the amendment contains language disallowing use of the data to negatively sanction teachers, as did amendment L.014. Mr. Daly responded, saying the state does not negatively sanction teachers, districts do. He also spoke to the language providing that data may not be used "in an arbitrary and capricious manner." Senator Spence explained that the language in amendment L.016 came from Brad Jupp, and is supported by Denver Public Schools. She read from an April 1, 2009, letter from U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan regarding data gathering by states.
Committee discussion about the amendment continued, with Senator Hudak saying that "educators," not "teachers," should be used in the amendment. She also spoke to the language on page three of the amendment, which she said requires development of performance levels for teachers.
Mr. Wenning returned to the table to speak to Senator Hudak's questions. He talked about the expectations of Secretary of Education Duncan. Conversation between Mr. Wenning and Senator Hudak ensued about the performance levels referred to in the amendment. Mr. Daly reacted to the conversation, saying it is not yet clear what "teacher effectiveness" means, but more guidance is likely to come. He said districts decide how to use data to connect teachers to students, and he talked about concerns around the state data system. Mr. Wenning responded and discussion continued.
Committee discussion continued. Senator Romer expressed concern about the process by which the amendment came to the committee. The committee discussed the amendment's provisions on page two, lines 14 through 20, that address how the data may not be used. Mr. Daly and Mr. Wenning weighed in as well.
Committee discussion of the amendment continued. Senator Bacon described a number of scenarios that might move the bill forward. Committee conversation around the scenarios ensued. Senator Spence clarified that she would not offer amendment L.014, she would only offer amendment L.016. She told the committee which stakeholder groups have agreed to amendment L.016.
|TIME: || 03:29:44 PM|
|MOTION:||Moved amendment L.016 (Attachment C), as amended. The motion failed on a 4-4 vote. |
Not Final YES: 4 NO: 4 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE
Senator Bacon said the bill would be laid over, unamended, until the committee's next scheduled meeting, Wednesday, April 15.
The committee adjourned.