Teacher accountability act.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: SF0146 Drafter: DRN LSO No.: 11LSO-0566 Effective Date: 7/1/2012 Enrolled Act No.: SEA0089 Chapter No.: Prime Sponsor: Senator Nicholas, P. Catch Title: Teacher accountability act. Subject: Teacher evaluation and teacher employment. Legislative findings: Teacher tenure is intended to protect competent teachers from arbitrary termination for reasons unrelated to job performance With the absence of clear, coherent criteria to measure job performance, tenure has become a guarantee of employment Districts are frustrated with the difficulty in removing nonperforming teachers the process is complex, time consuming and legally challenging The law should provide protection to performing teachers and give struggling teachers a fair opportunity to improve Current law goes beyond intended purpose provides an obstacle to removing non-performing teachers which creates greater demands on performing teachers Teacher Accountability Act is designed to create a teacher performance evaluation system based upon student achievement The Act ties directly to education accountability system and uses the statewide accountability system and the assessments and measures within that system to measure student achievement and effectiveness of classroom teachers Key Features: Requires State Board of Education to develop an annual teacher performance evaluation system Based in part on student academic growth measures Upon longitudinal data systems linking student achievement with teachers of record Clearly prescribing standards for exceptional, satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance Which allows a reasonable opportunity for mentoring and professional development activities for teachers designed to improve instruction and student achievement Requires School Districts to evaluate teacher performance, based in part upon standards set by the State Board of Education Initial contract teachers evaluated twice annually Continuing contract teachers evaluated annually Requires each School District Superintendent to report to the district board of trustees each April 15 including: All teachers whose performance evaluations are determined inadequate or unsatisfactory Mentoring and professional development activity made available to the identified teachers With a requirement that the School Board file a report with Department of Education not later than June 1 of each year certifying compliance Clarifies reasons for suspension, dismissal or termination: Incompetency (Existing Law) Neglect of Duty (Existing Law) Immorality, including sexual relations with a student (Clarified by Act) Insubordination (Existing Law) Physical incapacity to perform duties (Added by Act) Failure to perform duties satisfactorily (Added by Act) Inadequate performance on annual performance evaluation tied to student academic growth (Added by Act) Conviction of a felony (Added by Act) Any other good or just cause relating to the educational process (Clarified by Act) If a board proposes suspension or dismissal of a teacher, the teacher shall be notified of the proposed suspension or dismissal and may be suspended with or without pay: By the District Superintendent with pay pending: The investigation of the allegation of misconduct, which if proven, would be sufficient to dismiss or terminate the teacher; and The waiver of a hearing or outcome of a hearing By the School Board without pay : Not to exceed one year following the outcome of a hearing Requires hearings for termination, dismissal or suspension to be provided through the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) Hearings to be conducted in accordance with OAH rules for contested case proceedings District superintendent has burden of proof District to pay costs of OAH hearing Act applies to all teacher contracts from and after July 1, 2012 Eliminates the ability of any school board to designate a teacher as a continuing contract teacher at any time without regard to other provisions of teacher contract law Requires Select Committee on Accountability (created by 2011 SF0070) to study the use of the annual teacher evaluations as a component of the statewide accountability system Select Committee to recommend changes to the Teacher Accountability Act which provide a consistent, reliable and clearly defined evaluation process to measure teacher performance based upon growth in student performance Joint Appropriations Committee required to review the fiscal impact of placing teacher suspension, dismissal and termination hearings with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OHA), based upon report provided by OAH on or before September 1, 2011
Public statements
Last checked Aug 8, 1:03 AM
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports reinstating specific terms because they are common in state statutes and have established case law, arguing they differ from the current language regarding satisfactory performance.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as a compromise option for those who were uncomfortable with the previous vote, allowing them to reconsider their position.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker explains his vote by expressing concern that extending contract time might negatively impact struggling teachers who need timely feedback and intervention.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that allowing districts to grant continuing contract status undermines the statute's core concept and suggests there are better ways to reward young teachers.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker believes the amendment is fair because it allows districts to rehabilitate teachers they might otherwise fire through a consensual process.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that a prospective waiver of due process rights is ineffective because the right to such protections only arises after notice of termination has been given.
H44
Why they voted this way
The speaker opposes the division because he believes administrators will use it to cheaply remove teachers, leaving students without effective educators for an additional year.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes concurrence because the House amendments confuse board and superintendent roles regarding suspension without pay, lack timing provisions for investigations, require excessive reporting on all teachers instead of just non-performing ones, remove due process protections, and extend evaluation periods which could keep ineffective teachers longer.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
7 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
24 stored
Failed 2nd reading by GINGERY
Adopted 2nd reading by BROWN
Failed 2nd reading by GINGERY
Adopted 2nd reading by GINGERY
Adopted 2nd reading by GINGERY
Adopted 2nd reading by GINGERY
Withdrawn 2nd reading by MADDEN
Failed 2nd reading by PATTON
Adopted 2nd reading by TEETERS
Adopted 2nd reading by JAGGI
Failed 3rd reading by BYRD
Failed 3rd reading by CONNOLLY
Adopted 3rd reading by HARSHMAN
Adopted 3rd reading by JAGGI
Adopted 3rd reading by CONNOLLY
Adopted 3rd reading by FREEMAN
Failed 3rd reading by FREEMAN
Failed, Corrected 3rd reading by MADDEN
Adopted Committee of the Whole by MCKIM
Adopted Standing Committee by H04
Adopted 2nd reading by SCOTT
Filed 3rd reading by MEIER
Adopted, Corrected 3rd reading by MEIER
Failed, Corrected 3rd reading by MEIER