While the New York Times headline was impressive ? Leader of Teachers' Union Urges Dismissal Overhaul ? Mike wasn't fooled.? ?In any other field,? Petrilli told the Times, ?this would be considered completely nuts that a manager would not have rights and responsibilities to evaluate their employees and take action.?
A teacher evaluation system?? Sounds good.? Proposed by the American Federation of Teachers?? Beware.
In?fact, the wide gap between the ?overhaul? proposed by Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers on Thursday?and ?completely nuts? suggests the depth of the problem education reformers meet?when trying to face down teachers and their unions.
See Terry's earlier post on ?quality-blind layoffs? ? yes,?quality blind?is actually a?practice upheld by law in 14 states ? and Chris's entry on the pool of ?highly risk-averse workers? attracted to teaching because of low salaries and high benefits. Or review my post from a couple of days ago about Carnegie's new ?talent strategy? initiative and the curriculum skunk at the garden party.??Or, this just in from NPR:? ?The Providence [RI]?school board has sent termination notices to every teacher in the financially troubled city, sparking outrage in the teachers' union.?? Did I mention Wisconsin?
But Weingarten's speech on Thursday ? ?as prepared,? it is here ? should be studied as a touchstone for what is wrong with ?the system?; at least, it is worthy of a study of what it is that we have created with our system of contract negotiations.
In fact,?the speech, which?was only 3,000 words long, mentions ?system??25 times.??Weingarten wants a teacher ?evaluation system?; we don't have ?such systems? now; ?such a system would help determine who is and who is not an effective teacher?; ?we not only need an ?evaluation system,? but ?also an improvement and support system?; ?AFT will ?continue to resist?any system that is simply a sorting exercise?; we need ?an evaluation system?with clear standards and clear steps?; ?the ?real problem? is that ?there has been no real evaluation system.?
And there you have it. A union that has fought tooth-and-nail against any kind of evaluation is now fully engaged in creating a system that has ?clear standards and clear steps.???The AFT?wants ?everybody on the same page,? wants a teacher ?improvement plan? with ?articulated measures of success, timelines, support needed and periodic reviews.?? She wants ?teacher ownership of the plan.??
Though Weingarten seems to believe that this new system will keep us from having to adjudicate evaluation decisions in ?the judicial system?where the competency of an individual teacher gets litigated,? she insists on an evaluation system with ?due process? (mentioned eight times in the speech), meaning that she is proposing an extra-judicial system that, in fact, takes the rights of taxpayers to control their schools away from them. Weingarten suggests that it is ?the joint responsibility? of the district and the union ?to ensure that the teacher has all of the resources articulated in the improvement plan?.?? Uh?? Are we building a school system to cater to teachers ? or educate children?? Weingarten suggests that ?labor and management work together in a trusting, productive manner?? -- what happened to teachers, students, principals, and parents working together??
And this is the rub, I'm afraid. Early in her speech Weingarten suggests that ?it is obvious to us that making schools better places for teachers to teach also makes them better places for students to learn.?? True enough. But unions?? Though I am not an expert, I would love to see the research that shows that teacher unions make for better student outcomes or "better places for students to learn."? And I would love to know why, despite making schools better and better for teachers, schools have not gotten better for students.
No wonder Mike suggests that the Weingarten plan is ?completely nuts.?? And he points out that the AFT proposal did not address the most pressing teacher quality issue in our current financial crisis: ?how to lay off thousands of teachers without losing the talented ones: the Last In First Out (LIFO) syndrome (see Terry above).? Weingarten says, ?no one wants an ineffective teacher in the classroom,? but she avoids the AFT LIFO elephant in the room.
In fact, she proposes a system so burdened by ?due process? guarantees ? with their assumed right to work promises -- that we will quickly lose sight ? again ? of the fact that these are public schools, not union schools, and that the people ? the demos -- should be able to decide what kind of school they want, and, even, what kind of teachers they should hire and fire.
--Peter Meyer, Bernard Lee Schwartz Policy Fellow
