CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 29, 2010 06:57 PM UTC
57 Comments
They won’t even sit down with David–someone who, admittedly, disagrees with them, but is hardly someone who could be accused of playing “gotcha politics” in his interviews.
The CEA does not do a good job representing its membership, and I stand by my assertion that they are the worst, least-effective union in the state.
I would like to do so. But I’m at a loss as to who to talk to outside of the CEA. I can talk to individual teachers but they’re all over the board from strong supporters of abolishing tenure to strong supporters of the present system.
Is there any other group that can speak for the teachers as a whole? Because if so, I would be happy to interview them. I want to get both sides of this out.
thanks – dave
You may want to try the American Federation of Teachers, Colorado. They’re not nearly as big as CEA in Colorado but I’m sure they’re involved in this somehow. Give their president a call.
http://www.co.aft.org
AFT in many ways is more progressive than CEA.
He doesn’t play “gotcha politics” in his other interviews because he has a lot more respect for Republican politicians than he does for teachers’ unions. I can totally understand why Ms. Fallin would expect it to be a belligerent unpleasant experience. (And I don’t get the whole “Let’s call women by their first names” thing either, but that’s another story.)
I think it might be worth doing anyway, just so David meets one of the people he’s always calling “idiot” and maybe changing his mind a little bit, but if I were Deborah Fallin I would have no expectation of fairness, and that’s true regardless of David’s history of very good interviews. When it comes to this issue and these people, he isn’t respectful in the slightest.
I think that’s a very unfair claim. And in my defense I think there are a large number of teachers that my kids have had that would back me up on this – I highly respect and appreciate good teachers.
As to claiming I would be unfair – based on what? I’ve been every bit as mean and snarky to the Republicans on this site as you and others. But in the interviews I have been fair. So can you point to anything that would lead one to expect different here?
Finally, as to calling people by their first name, I do that with everyone.
I think you’re letting our disagreement on this issue color your view of how you think the interview would be conducted. And I understand that – I’m guessing a lot of the Republicans I have interviewed had equivalent concerns beforehand.
Hmmm…
Have you actually interviewed anyone who’s pro-teacher or pro-union? I haven’t read all your interviews, but generally you seem to interview Republicans and anti-union Democrats, and you push them to criticize the current education system, which most of them are quite happy to do. You aren’t objective on that issue (which is fine, you don’t pretend to be). If I was the subject of your interview and refused to agree with your characterization, I’d expect to get called an idiot in your “My $0.02.” It wouldn’t bother me much, except insofar as it would make my colleagues look bad. But some people have a thinner skin.
As for this:
No, I’ll put my meanness to Republicans up against anyone’s. No contest here. I am the reigning champion in this category.
On the diary title, I was inspired by “Roger and Me” – so call me guilty of stealing from Roger Moore (who I think is pro union). I do mix naming as I think flows best – and did call her “Deborah Fallin” at times. Not sure what else you want here???
As to the interviews, I’ve pretty much interviewed every major Dem (except Udall) from DeGette to (who counts as the most conservative Dem?). If you say they’re all anti-union, blame the voters, not me.
As to calling the person I interview an idiot – have I ever done that? I did a fast check and couldn’t find anything even close to that. (And if I ever did that – to anyone – I apologize.)
When I read “Deborah and Me” I immediately thought of “Marley and Me” as opposed to “Roger and Me.”
Horror flicks and chick flicks. So I never saw Marley & Me.
John Salazar or Betsy Markey, depending how you’re measuring.
Unless you can demonstrate that you’ve been a dick to any R you come in contact with that you have no Pols street cred.
That lets me out. I even have coffee with them.
but I got the title when it comes to swearing so I’m satisfied. It just happens to be something I have excelled at since 4th grade.
They just have less than me. 🙂
I’ve read a lot of his interviews and he is always nice, nice, nice, nice to the point that I want to kick him in the shins and say, be more forward and Jerry Springeresque!
His blog posts are a different matter where only most of the time he is nice.
That, I suppose, is the difference.
I’m serious. De-certify the teachers’ unions and start from scratch with a new one, devoid of any of these assholes that are more interested in holding power than they are in graduating kids.
It’s a disgrace.
I agree with you, LB. If the teachers union won’t sit for an interview with a softball-tosser like David, it just confirmed it won’t stand for any accountability whatsoever.
Ok, that does it. Next interview I am taking an actual hardball to the interview and asking them if they can catch it. No way around calling that a hardball question 🙂
I gotta agree with Gertie, definately a softball interviewer, although you’re the only one that gets these interviews and spends hours and hours writing their responses, which I really respect.
It’s my guess that they didn’t know who you are cause if they would’ve read even one other interview they would have absolutely sat down for the interview as you never take a cheap shot (at least not one big enough that I remember).
I can’t believe she was dumb enough not to sit down with you.
CEA if you’re reading, call David back up and take him out to Chipotle and have a damn interview. Idiots.
They turned down both a free chance to have someone who opposes their views on tenure make them look good, and a free lunch.
if they said no to free coffee/lunch and a balanced interview.
David takes them out? Wow. We should set up a paypal account and take donations for him so he doesn’t have to pay for it out of his own pocket.
I just think they made a bad decision.
Also, David can afford it.
get to call someone else an idiot?
People, in general, preview your posts each time you call someone stupid.
My gift is of gab, not proofreading. I reread each post twice and sadly always miss some type of typo.
Any idiot worth their salt would understand that my misspelling of definitely was a missed typo.
So I say again sxp, don’t be an ass, I doubt your mother would approve. 😉
to see both that saying nice things about the subject does not mean I agree with them, and to show that I do a fair job. She was not interested in doing so.
I’m not against the teachers having a union, but I am against that union having almost nothing to do with improving the quality of education. It’s a very clear example and it really sticks in my craw.
I agree with you here. The biggest problem with Teachers’ Unions, in my opinion, is that they have moved away from being the kind of guilds that are found in other professions (eg, medicine and law), which both protect the practioners interests and ensure adherence to professional standards. The latter commitment has been almost completely lost, at great social cost.
we have a trifecta of agreement on teacher’s unions.
Steve Harvey + Laughing Boy + Fidel = Triguardian
I was half tempted to do a GlennBeckesque rant on our combined initials, SHLBFDN, maybe throwing in a little numerology, and some invented historical referrences, but realized that it would require way too much effort….
And a clown suit.
Looking over David’s list of questions, it hit me…
We have some systems already that address competence in a profession.
What about a licensing organization, similar to the bar? I don’t know any of the details of how lawyers regulate themselves except that fear of disbarment is real. There was a lawyer in our area who was disbarred recently. It took several years for it to happen, but it did happen. Alternatively, what about doctors?
My point is that we have some systems already out there for determining and enforcing professional levels of service. Why reinvent the wheel? As I have argued before, the people responsible for removing a teacher, the principals, are not generally suited to making firing decisions. They can’t fire a kid, and they can’t fire a teacher (not easily, at least). Then, when they do, they catch all kinds of hell.
The only catch I see is the cry of local control. But it seems like something that can be sidestepped in this case. Who better to determine and enforce standards than the teachers themselves?
All that’s required is a clean background check and a teacher’s certificate, awarded by colleges who have extracted tuition and dictated the courses, which may or may not have relevance to teaching. Few licenses are revoked and those for felonies.
Don’t get me started on lawyers and the state bar’s “disciplinary” actions. Lawyers do get disbarred for felonies and for using their trust accounts for personal expenses.
That’s about it. Competence isn’t a factor in licensing for teachers or lawyers.
but the bar licensing process is draconian (not necessarily in a way which ensure competence, however). One woman had her admission to the bar delayed by a humiliating and traumatizing year due to her having received counseling (or maybe it was for medication she had taken, I can’t remember) following a rape, catalyzing a concern among the review board that she might be psychologically unstable (and no, there was no other evidence cited for their concern). The reporting requirements on the application are exhaustive, and highly intrusive. All of that may have little impact on the competence of those they admit, but they certainly are committed to a thorough screening process.
I can see the problems, the main point, however, is that competence, etc., would be decided by teachers, not administrators, parents, or the general public. Those important groups should be factors but if teachers controlled the process and the Leg identified a baseline of factors, I think it could be interesting and it would give someone, say a parent, a place to go to file a complaint against a teacher for, as an example, violating district policy.
Good diary, by the way.
Great diary, Dave. What a bunch of cowards the largest union in the State must be to not grant you an interview the week some watered-down, cheesy tenure adjustment they’re against is on the floor.
And of course, MOtR. Mostly for the cussing.
I want potato healing.
in your pocket?
What is this, IdahoPols?
In August of 2008, the first Convention event I attended was hosted by the NEA. The speaker was Bobby Kennedy Jr., and the atmosphere was electric. I was proud and inspired to stand with my friends and colleagues in education as we began that historic week.
The party favor for the event was a blue tote bag, which read, “Obama has the right ideas for public schools”. I believed that then, and I believe it now.
The Colorado Senate voted tonight on SB 191, Senator Michael Johnston’s bill to reform teacher tenure, end forced placement and provide a measured, nuanced approach to measuring the effectiveness of teachers and principals, framing the work of the Governor’s Council on Education Effectiveness. Senator Johnston is a principal and teacher himself, and advised the Obama administration on their education platform.
As a member of ProgressNow, I received an email an hour after the Senate vote, urging me to oppose it. ProgressNow got it wrong on the facts – The bill doesn’t develop or implement a teacher evaluation system system. It makes recommendations about effectiveness measurement which will be considered over several years by the council appointed by the Governor – which includes teachers.
And ProgressNow got it wrong on the merits of the issue, central to the Obama agenda – for too long, we progressives have allowed our awareness of issues of poverty, socioeconomic class, and language and immigration status to paralyze our ability to act on reforming education, our most fundamental social justice issue. It is easy to find reasons why poor urban children are underachieving, and hard to find solutions. The net effect of this paralysis is to accept the status quo as inevitable, while we study or commission our way to tentative and incremental public policy consensus – and lose another generation of children.
As Dwight Jones pointed out in a Denver Post Op-ed two weeks ago, this is not just about the Race to the Top funding. But it is about the goals of the Obama administration in education, and it is about fundamental change.
I have worked in tandem with members and leaders of the teachers’ union for many years, and have great respect for them. I am sorry to disagree with many old friends and colleagues on this measure, but on this item in progressive policy we part ways. The future of Colorado’s school children is not well served by a system that protects the job security of adults at the expense of our students, and this should be the central concern for progressives. Significant concessions were negotiated with CEA over several months prior to the introduction of this bill – teachers were consulted every step of the way in its formulation.
Research shows that an effective teacher is the number one factor in determining student growth. An effective principal is number two.
Here’s what Education News Colorado said about the provisions of SB 191:
Key provisions of the bill include annual teacher and principal evaluations, with teacher evaluations to be based 50 percent on student growth and principal evaluations based two-thirds on student growth and the demonstrated effectiveness of a principal’s teachers.
The bill also would require that tenure be earned after three consecutive years of effectiveness as determined by evaluations. Tenured teachers could be returned to probation if they don’t have good evaluations for two years. The bill also would require the mutual consent for placement of teachers in specific schools and establishes procedures for handling teachers who aren’t placed. It also specifies that evaluations can be considered when layoffs are made.
Many of the details of the new system would be left to the Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness, whose work is just getting underway, and to the State Board of Education. A key part of that work would be developing a definition of educator effectiveness on which to base a new evaluations system.
I urge you to take a stand on SB 191, and encourage your representatives to support it.
Also, what you wrote – beautifully worded.
So it’s hard to know if there’s anything left of the original bill.
All the amendments that would have emasculated it were defeated.
saves me the trouble of trying to sort my way through the engrossed bill.