Wider than ever: Ohio’s “high-performing teacher” definition reminds us of public education’s philosophical divides

Last year’s biennial budget (HB 64) required Ohio to define what it means to be a “consistently high-performing teacher” by July 1, a date that is fast approaching. This particular provision aimed to make life easier for such teachers by excusing them from the requirement to complete additional coursework (and shell out extra money) each time they renew their licenses. It also exempts them from additional professional development requirements prescribed by their districts or schools. Who could oppose freeing some of our best teachers from a couple of burdensome mandates?

More people than you might think, starting with the group tasked with defining “consistently high-performing”: the Ohio Educator Standards Board. The board recently “voted unanimously to oppose the law” according to Gongwer News—never mind the fact that the law passed last year and contesting it now is futile. Chairwoman Sandra Orth said that defining a high-performing teacher was disrespectful and unproductive. Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT) President Melissa Cropper also weighed in, calling it “another slap in the face to our profession.” Meanwhile, state board of education member A.J. Wagner characterized this provision as a “law that was made to be broken” and urged fellow members to follow in the footsteps of the standards board and refuse to approve a definition. That’s not an option in the face of a statutory deadline, but it shows how far some are willing to go in order to grandstand.

What aspect of the high-performing teacher definition is so disconcerting, exactly? It doesn’t eliminate professional development, as the provision’s opponents misleadingly suggest; it eliminates specific requirements for Ohio’s top-performing teachers, which is meant to free them up so they can seek out the learning opportunities that they deem most worthwhile. The backlash from teachers’ unions and their allies is both disappointing and predictable. They’ve been outspoken critics for years as Ohio legislators have attempted to alter the teacher evaluation system in an effort to better differentiate teacher performance (even if it hasn’t done so very well). Even though the provision would result in unhampering certain teachers from onerous requirements, opponents are critical because it would necessitate a differentiation of performance within the teaching profession. Still, it’s an awfully low-stakes provision to protest (in contrast to, for example, teacher performance designations tied to layoffs). And it doesn’t advance the cause of Ohio’s teachers, especially its top performers, at all.

There’s a divide between those who believe teacher performance can and should be measured and those who argue the opposite—perhaps because they don’t want it to be measured. The best strategy to contest a system that attempts to reward high-performers is to call into question the idea that it’s possible to measure or define high-performers in the first place. The standards board seems to be employing this strategy—Chairwoman Orth said that a high-performing teacher can’t be defined with “any kind of validity or consistency,” as did the OFT in its ponderously titled blog post, “Does a 'consistently high performing teacher' exist?” Cropper said that the OFT will be lobbying for the removal of the definition in law. That’s right: The mere designation of a high-performing teacher—and any incentives or rewards attached to it—is so insidious that the OFT is willing to spend taxpayer resources to lobby against it. All of this serves as further evidence that vested interests feel a knee-jerk need to defend the status quo, even in areas that are relatively low-stakes and where top-performing teachers could benefit.

The recent spat also underscores a rift between those who believe public education needs freedom from regulation (as Fordham articulated a year ago in our Getting out of the Way report) and those who want to see regulation applied uniformly. Teachers’ unions and those in the latter camp champion one-size-fits-all mandates selectively. In one breath, they call for expensive class-size requirements, the application of traditional school mandates to charter schools, and treating teachers equally. In the next, they complain about state and federal accountability mandates that they perceive to threaten local autonomy and exalt the principles of freedom and creativity (look at the Ohio Education Association’s vision for accountability under ESSA, premised on “upholding creativity over standardization”). It is ironic indeed that many of the same people calling for freedom and trust on high-stakes accountability matters actively oppose a low-stakes provision that would allow Teacher-of-the-Year winners to determine what additional training to pursue (instead of the state prescribing it for them).

Despite the standards board’s abdication of responsibility, Ohio statute—and the impending deadline—remains. The Ohio Department of Education went ahead and developed a definition that was approved at the June state board of education meeting.[1] At least one group decided to meet its statutory responsibilities. The latest mini-scuffle about teacher quality in Ohio is a reminder that teachers’ unions sometimes behave in ways that are surprisingly anti-teacher and—in that they selectively bemoan certain one-size-fits-all policies while simultaneously defending ones that treat their members in one-size-fits-all fashion—hypocritical.