Conn. endorses new teacher evaluation methods

HARTFORD, Conn. — For the first time, students' academic progress will soon be a substantial factor in evaluating the skills of Connecticut's 50,000-plus public school teachers and principals.

The state Board of Education on Friday unanimously endorsed guidelines for those performance evaluations, a key step in its request for a waiver from some No Child Left Behind law mandates — and also in Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's proposal to reform tenure to make it easier for districts to dismiss inept teachers.

The framework was the result of an advisory council's work, and will go now to another advisory group to work out details on how the specifics would be put into practice. That includes recommending whether teachers labeled as substandard could keep teaching while trying to improve, and the point at which districts may want to start dismissal proceedings.

Connecticut teachers automatically receive tenure after their fourth year in the profession, and it can be revoked only under very specific circumstances and after a long process of hearings.

Critics say that allows inept or burned-out educators to keep their jobs at the expense of children who need strong teachers, and at the expense of a system in which the achievement gap keeps growing between wealthy and poor children.

Representatives of the state's two largest teachers' unions were part of the committee that endorsed the framework for the state board's consideration. They have said they support reforming tenure and updating evaluations — as long as the evaluations are fair, consistent, delivered by supervisors well-trained in evaluation methods, and include chances to improve.

Connecticut Education Commissioner Stefan Pryor told state school board members Friday that he, too, views the new evaluation framework as more than a way of separating the best teachers from the worst. He said it's important to view the evaluations as a map to help struggling teachers improve.

"I aim to refer to the system every time I refer to it as an 'evaluation and support' system. I think we need to phrase it that way and mean it," he said. "The point of an evaluation system is not evaluation for evaluation's sake. It's not 'gotcha.'

"The point of the system is to enable professionals to improve their practice, so it's critical that the support infrastructure, professional development and training offered (would) be geared toward remedying those needs that are identified," he said.