Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's proposed education reform package is not without its problems. The legislation calls for more aggressive intervention by the state in turning around troubled school systems, but the details of exactly how that would work remain a bit murky. And many of the proposals are underfunded, the result of a lack of political will to set priorities and sacrifice other budgetary sacred cows to invest in education.

But on balance, the administration has it right. These reform proposals go well beyond any attempt by prior administrations. They would mean a fundamental change in direction, setting the foundation for more change to come.

Conversely, if the legislature surrenders to political pressure by watering down these reforms and refusing to tie teacher performance to tenure and compensation, it will be a major setback. We don't think Michelle Rhee, director of the national student advocacy group StudentsFirst, was exaggerating when at a Hartford rally earlier this month she declared, "The eyes of the nation are on Connecticut right now."

In Ms. Rhee's estimation, this state, with "a Democratic governor and a Democratic legislature … is taking the most aggressive stance on education reform. If this bill is defeated it will send a message to other Democratic governors in other states, 'Don't take on this issue. Don't take it on. It's not worth it. It's too politically hard.' "

Most controversial is Gov. Malloy's proposal to tie teacher evaluations in Connecticut to earning and maintaining tenure and boosting pay. Both the American Federation of Teachers and the Connecticut Education Association unions object to this dramatic change from pay increases tied strictly to seniority and the earning of permanent tenure after four years of teaching.

In January the leaders of both unions endorsed as fair a teacher evaluation formula created by the ad hoc Performance Evaluation Advisory Council. Teachers would be graded 45 percent on student performance; 40 percent on observation; 10 percent on peer and parent surveys; and 5 percent on teamwork (overall school performance).

Union leaders now say, however, that they did not expect the administration to tie this good evaluation policy to salary schedules and tenure. But if administrators cannot use evaluations to identify struggling teachers, reward good ones and dismiss bad ones, what are they for?

Teachers appear to welcome most of the legislation, but they cannot show genuine commitment to reform without a willingness to have their own performance tested.

Knowing school choice is a critical element in driving reform, the administration seeks to expand charter schools and their innovative methods in high-need districts. But the plan requires these schools to recruit and retain struggling and special needs students, responding to the perception that charter schools cherry-pick the best and leave traditional public schools with the most challenging students.

The reform package calls for the state Department of Education to intervene in struggling urban school districts, with the expectation of transforming 25 schools over the next two years.

It seeks $12 million to continue expanding early childhood education.

It boosts minimum standards for education graduates, requiring prospective teachers to have a grade-point average of B+ or better. But it also includes financial incentives, in the form of tuition reimbursements and student loan forgiveness, to recruit the best teachers willing to work in high-need schools.

Those who love teaching can work to become certified "master educators" with new responsibilities and additional pay, an alternative to the traditional career path of going into administration to advance.

The legislature's Education Committee expects to vote on the reform package Monday. We urge the committee to push the legislation forward and stand firm on the teacher tenure and performance issue.