"صفحۂ اول" کے نسخوں کے درمیان فرق
حذف شدہ مندرجات اضافہ شدہ مندرجات
کوئی خلاصۂ ترمیم نہیں |
کوئی خلاصۂ ترمیم نہیں |
||
سطر 1:
The Role of Teachers in School Improvement:
Lessons From the Field
Randi Weingarten*
Teacher engagement in the development and implementation of
educational reform is . . . crucial and school reform will not work
unless it is supported from the bottom up. This requires those responsible
for change to both communicate their aims well and involve
the stakeholders who are affected. But it also requires
teachers to contribute as the architects of change, not just its implementers.
Some of the most successful reforms are those supported
by strong unions rather than those that keep the union role
weak.1
INTRODUCTION: THE POLICY CONTEXT
Talk of education reform inevitably turns to teachers—as it should. The
quality of the teacher workforce is a major issue in policy discussions about
how to improve student achievement in the United States. While teacher
performance has been a predominant theme in discussions of American education
at least since the mid-1980s and the publication of A Nation Prepared:
Teachers for the 21st Century,2 attention over the last decade in
particular has been focused on teachers as the most important in-school factor
for influencing student learning. This focus has given rise to two competing
views of how best to improve teaching and learning in schools: the
“dictate and dismiss” reform method versus the “collaborate and develop”
approach.
Dictate and Dismiss
One camp (the “dictate and dismiss” perspective), acknowledging the
important role teachers play in schools, views the problem of poor student
performance as the result of poor teacher performance—a problem that such
reformers believe derives from an education system that lacks teacher accountability
and is beholden to unions that stand in the way of change. This
“dictate and dismiss” policy approach posits that the major cause of low
* Randi Weingarten is president of the American Federation of Teachers.
1 ORG. FOR ECON. CO-OPERATION & DEV. (OECD), BUILDING A HIGH-QUALITY TEACHING
PROFESSION: LESSONS FROM AROUND THE WORLD 51 (2011), available at http://www2.ed.gov/
about/inits/ed/internationaled/background.pdf.
2 CARNEGIE FORUM ON EDUC. & THE ECON., A NATION PREPARED: TEACHERS FOR THE
21ST CENTURY (1986).
10 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
student achievement is the presence of too many underperforming teachers
in our schools—teachers who they assert cannot be removed because of
teacher contractual provisions that are unreasonable and overly burdensome.
3 Thus, these “dictate and dismiss” reformers focus on sorting teachers
and incentivizing performance by developing differential compensation
systems—paying teachers according to their students’ performance on standardized
tests.4 Put simply, the assumption of “dictate and dismiss” is that
too many teachers are either unable or unwilling to do the work necessary to
help students achieve.
“Dictate and dismiss” reformers believe that teachers must be incentivized
to do the right thing by rewards and/or punishments and, failing that,
they must be dismissed from the profession. Consequently, such reformers
often ask, “What can we do to make teachers do a better job?” instead of,
“What can we do to help teachers do a better job?” They view school improvement
as a “top-down” process where policy solutions for school and
teacher improvement are imposed on teachers with little or no teacher input
into their design or implementation.5 Because teachers, and most especially
their unions, are seen as the culprits, there is little interest in involving them
in the school improvement process. In fact, some “dictate and dismiss”
reformers aim to stifle the teacher voice in policy decisions, and to separate
teachers from their unions.6 Indeed, it often appears that their goals go beyond
specific education policies to a systematic broadside against teachers’
3 See Eric A. Hanushek, Teacher Deselection, in CREATING A NEW TEACHING PROFESSION
165 (Dan Goldhaber & Jane Hannaway eds., 2009); JESSICA LEVIN ET AL., UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES:
THE CASE FOR REFORMING THE STAFFING RULES IN URBAN TEACHER CONTRACTS
(2005), available at http://tntp.org/assets/documents/UnintendedConsequences.pdf?files/
UnintendedConsequences.pdf.
4 NAT’L COUNCIL ON TEACHER QUALITY, STATE OF THE STATES: TRENDS AND EARLY LESSONS
ON TEACHER EVALUATION AND EFFECTIVENESS POLICIES (2011), available at http://www.
nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_stateOfTheStates.pdf.
5 See, e.g., Marc Bousquet, No Excuses, Mr. President, INSIDE HIGHER ED (Oct. 29, 2010,
3:00 AM), http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/10/29/bousquet (on file with the
Harvard Law School Library); David Kirp, Is Michelle Rhee a 16th Century Throwback?,
HUFFINGTON POST (Mar. 31, 2011, 1:35 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirp/ismichelle-
rhee-a-16th-c_b_842858.html (on file with the Harvard Law School Library); Bill
Turque, D.C. Schools Insider - Rhee to Principals: ‘Go Hard or Go Home’, WASH. POST (Aug.
19, 2010, 2:06 PM), http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcschools/2010/08/rhee_to_principals_
go_hard_or.html (on file with the Harvard Law School Library); By Request: More Thoughts
on Michelle Rhee’s Leadership, EDUC. INSIDE OUT (Mar. 9, 2011), http://educationescritora.
wordpress.com/2011/03/09/by-request-more-thoughts-on-michelle-rhees-leadership/ (on file
with the Harvard Law School Library).
6 See Kevin Carey, Teacher Evaluation and the Triumph of Empiricism, WASH. MONTHLY
(Jul. 15, 2011, 1:00 PM), http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2011/07/
teacher_evaluation_and_the_tri030920.php (on file with the Harvard Law School Library)
(stating that teacher evaluation is legally excluded from collective bargaining in Washington,
D.C.); Andrew J. Rotherham, Quiet Riot: Insurgents Take On Teachers’ Unions, TIME MAG.
(Aug. 11, 2011), http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2087980,00.html (on file
with the Harvard Law School Library).
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 11
unions and a desire to dismantle the entire spectrum of rights and protections
that teachers have won through laws and collective bargaining.7
Collaborate and Develop
The second approach to reform, the “collaborate and develop” perspective,
is built on shared responsibility and accountability. These reformers
also acknowledge that excellent teaching is a critical factor in student learning,
but in addition they recognize that teachers cannot do it all, and cannot
do it alone. Their policy perspective toward school improvement and enhanced
teacher effectiveness focuses on 1) teacher involvement and development,
2) labor-management collaboration, and 3) 360-degree accountability.
1) Teacher Involvement and Development
Because this reform alternative focuses on the key role teachers play in
their students’ academic success, policy development is formulated on the
understanding that teachers’ knowledge and expertise, along with improving
the conditions for teaching and learning, must be the basis for how we improve
education. Further, if reform is to work, the proposals must be credible
to teachers—that is, teachers must believe that the proposed changes will
actually help them be successful with students.
2) Labor-Management Cooperation
Top-down, dictatorial mandates are a prescription for failure in public
education, as in most other sectors.8 As a theory of action, collaboration—
teamwork or working together—has boundless potential. Collaboration
based on shared responsibility means that parties are willing to solve
problems, confront challenges and innovate in a system that promotes trust
and values worker involvement in decision-making.
But collaboration is not an end in itself, and it cannot be done in isolation.
It is used in service of a mission—in this case, improving student success.
By itself, collaboration won’t automatically create success, but it can
lead administrators, teachers, and parents to work together toward goals on
which they all agree, using methods they generally accept. The collabora-
7 See Julie Carr Smyth, Associated Press, Ohio Rejects Republican-Backed Union Limits,
TIME MAG. (Nov. 8, 2011), http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2098978,00.html
(on file with the Harvard Law School Library); Editorial Staff, Lawmakers Vote to Repeal
1970s-Era Collective Bargaining Law, TN REP. (May 21, 2011), http://www.tnreport.com/
2011/05/lawmakers-vote-to-repeal-1970s-era-collective-bargaining-law/ (on file with the
Harvard Law School Library); The Wisconsin Way: Cracking Down on Collective Bargaining,
ECONOMIST, Feb. 17, 2011, at 12, available at http://www.economist.com/node/18178517.
8 See generally SAUL A. RUBINSTEIN & JOHN E. MCCARTHY, COLLABORATING ON SCHOOL
REFORM: CREATING UNION-MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS
(2010); PETER SENGE ET AL., THE NECESSARY REVOLUTION: HOW INDIVIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO CREATE A SUSTAINABLE WORLD (2008).
12 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
tive process can create trust, enable risk-taking, and foster shared responsibility.
It is a way to ensure that all the players have a voice and it is a
vehicle by which all parties indispensable to the education process try to
solve problems, rather than win arguments.9
3) 360-Degree Accountability
Public recognition of the centrality of quality teaching to children’s
learning is a two-edged sword for teachers. It leads to both credit and
blame. Teachers are willing to accept that responsibility and be held accountable,
in a fair and objective way, for their contributions to the results
achieved. They are willing to police their ranks to make sure their colleagues
are qualified and accountable. But elected officials and policy makers
must also be accountable for doing their part. They must make sure that
schools have a rich, demanding curriculum that prepares students for twentyfirst
century challenges. They must ensure that schools are adequately and
equitably funded and that educators and students have the teaching and
learning conditions that foster success.
Assessing the Various Policy Proposals
The viability of any policy alternative—whether proposed by the “dictate
and dismiss” camp or the “collaborate and develop” approach—is dependent
on how well the proposal measures up to four standards: evidence,
equity, scalability, and sustainability:
evidence to ensure the proposals are research-based and the
educational strategies are proven to be effective and efficient?
equity? Does the
proposal ensure that all children will receive a quality education?
scale? That is, will it lead to systemic
change—not isolated “boutique” change affecting only a few?
sustainable despite likely changes in district leadership,
budgets, or politics?
I. ORGANIZATION OF THIS PAPER
Following this introduction, Part Two looks at some of the policy alternatives
generated by the “dictate and dismiss” reformers. It examines the
“miracles” and legends that allegedly demonstrate quick fixes for public
education. Although they have superficial appeal, they are impractical at
9 See
available at http://abcusd.k12.ca.us/ourpages/auto/2009/6/
RUBINSTEIN & MCCARTHY, supra note 8, at 8–
decade and the union leaders, administrators, and teachers have worked together on a variety
of successful joint learning opportunities).
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 13
best and fraudulent at worst. Put to the tests of evidence, equity, scalability,
and sustainability defined above, they fall far short. Part Three presents examples
of policy reform involving teacher voice and collaboration. It draws
on the real-world experiences of high-performing school systems in North
America, Europe, and Asia, whose success demonstrates the value of
cooperation.
Part Four takes the argument for teacher voice one step further. It
makes the case that working with teachers also means working with teachers’
unions, which represent the voice and vision of teachers and can turn
teachers’ collective wisdom into effective action. This section cites examples
of innovative, collaborative reforms led by local teachers’ unions across
the United States. They are among many that belie the canard that teacher
unionism and education reform are mutually exclusive and bolster the argument
that strong unions make possible the involvement of teacher expertise
in reform efforts and provide a hospitable environment for transforming
teaching and learning.
In keeping with the understanding that collaboration is only a means to
an end, Part Five presents two proposals that can transform public education,
but depend on collaboration to succeed. In one case the collaborators are
teachers, school administrators, school district leaders, and lawmakers; in
the other they are teachers, school officials, parents, and community leaders.
Finally, I conclude with a challenge: Are policymakers and school reform
activists going to continue to exclude teachers from the policy discussion
or are they going to actively engage teachers as partners in school
reform?
II. SOME CURRENT REFORM TRENDS
Unfortunately, words like “partnership” and “cooperation” seem to be
anathema for many current “dictate and dismiss” reformers. It is ironic that
such reformers seek to underscore the importance of teachers yet want to
make education policy without listening to them. For example, a major goal
of recent “dictate and dismiss” efforts is to place accountability for student
achievement almost entirely on teachers’ shoulders by basing their performance
ratings largely on their students’ standardized test scores.10 Yet at the
same time they want to strip teachers of their professional autonomy and
discretion and even their basic right to choose their own best teaching
strategies.
These same reformers disparage the idea of working with teachers. For
example, Joel Klein, former chancellor of the New York City schools, writ-
10 FLA. STAT. § 1012.34(3)(a)(1) (2011) (stating that at least fifty percent of a teacher’s
performance evaluation must be based on data from annual statewide assessments, or from
district assessments for teachers of untested grades or subject areas); TENN. CODE ANN. § 49-1-
302(d)(2)(A) (2011) (stating that fifty percent of teacher evaluation criteria shall be based on
student achievement data).
14 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
ing in The Atlantic recently said, “Collaboration is the elixir of the statusquo
crowd.”11 While effective leadership is important to any improvement
effort, top-down reform is a fool’s errand. In the long run, the commitment
of classroom teachers and the resources and support given to teachers and
students are more likely to influence the success or failure of any education
reform.
The John Wayne Myth
Perhaps because so many “dictate and dismiss” reformers come from
the worlds of finance and business, many of them believe that any person
with intelligence, talent, and a strong work ethic can be a great teacher,
principal, or educational guru. And that notion has caught hold because it
makes a dramatic story.
We can all point to a few charismatic leaders who have done marvelous
work. Think of David Levin, the cofounder of the Knowledge Is Power
Program (KIPP) network of highly touted charter schools for disadvantaged
youth, Wendy Kopp of Teach For America (TFA), Jaime Escalante, the
teacher portrayed in the acclaimed movie Stand and Deliver who helped
struggling students from inner-city Los Angeles pass the College Board’s
Advanced Placement calculus exams, or Debbie Meier, founder of the modern
small-schools movement.
The United States needs a model, however, for the continuous growth
of three million teachers and nearly fifty million students.12 We keep searching
for the silver bullet when what we really need is evidence-driven sustainability
and scalability. If we want real and lasting change in schooling
across our vast and varied nation, we need to get beyond relying on the
transformative effect of a lone hero and instead figure out how to build the
capacity of many.
“Miracle” Schools
Schools that work need to be identified, studied, and their exemplary
practices put into place more broadly. Unfortunately, the fact is that many
of the so-called miracles, where previously struggling schools suddenly
make unprecedented gains, have turned out to be less than advertised—more
a product of statistical misinterpretation, manipulation, or misrepresentation
11 Joel Klein, The Failure of American Schools, THE ATLANTIC, June 2011, at 66, 73,
available at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/06/the-failure-of-americanschools/
8497/4/; see also Tough Talk From DC Schools Chief Michelle Rhee, WALL ST. J.
(Nov. 17, 2009, 12:30 PM), http://blogs.wsj.com/ceo-council/2009/11/17/tough-talk-from-dcschools-
chief-michelle-rhee/ (on file with the Harvard Law School Library) (At the 2009 Wall
Street Journal CEO Council meeting, then-DC Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee stated
that “[c]ollaboration and consensus building are frankly overrated.”).
12 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: 2008 1 (2011),
available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p20-564.pdf.
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 15
than reality.13 Take the “Texas Miracle,” in which Houston Independent
School Superintendent Rod Paige (later U.S. Secretary of Education under
President George W. Bush) reportedly presided over fantastic test score
gains and dropout-rate reductions. Before these supposed successes were
exposed as a fabrication, the entire federal role in education had been revamped
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), using Houston’s
approach as a model. This law has destined thousands of American schools
to “failure” based on a flawed paradigm.14 The tie of Texas policies to the
NCLB with little credible evidence of real improvement has had negative
effects nationwide.15 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan estimated that
eighty-two percent of American schools will fail to meet their NCLB goals
for proficiency in math and reading by 2011.16 He has repeatedly described
the NCLB as broken, and in September 2011 the Obama administration proposed
granting states waivers from certain provisions of the law.17
We all want educational success, and no individual or group has a monopoly
on good ideas. But evidence and research must drive policy, not
evidence-free narratives and testimonials of miraculous school turnarounds.
These compelling anecdotes hijack the public discourse about school reform
and perpetuate the unfounded belief that—as important as the following two
13 See Nancy Badertscher & Jaime Sarrio, Five Atlanta Schools Placed Under State Direction,
ATLANTA J.-CONST., Nov. 3, 2011, available at http://www.ajc.com/news/five-atlantaschools-
placed-1215406.html (describing the recent cheating scandals in Atlanta where test
scores indicated enormous gains in many schools that further investigation indicated were the
result of cheating on the part of teachers and administrators, not the result of learning mastery);
Jack Gillum & Marisol Bello, When Standardized Test Scores Soared in D.C., Were the Gains
Real?, USA TODAY, Mar. 28, 2011, at A1, available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/
education/2011-03-28-1Aschooltesting28_CV_N.htm (describing a similar cheating scandals
in Washington, D.C., where test scores indicated enormous gains in many schools that further
investigation indicated were the result of cheating on the part of teachers and administrators,
not the result of learning mastery).
14 Walt Haney, The Myth of the Texas Miracle, 8 EDUC. POL’Y ANALYSIS ARCHIVES
(2000), http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/432/828 (on file with the Harvard Law School Library)
(describing the many reasons why the “Texas miracle” was an illusion); Stephen P.
Klein et al., What Do Test Scores in Texas Tell Us?, 8 EDUC. POL’Y ANALYSIS ARCHIVES
(2000), http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/440/563 (on file with the Harvard Law School Library)
(highlighting deep concerns with the validity of Texas standardized tests); Rebecca
Leung, The ‘Texas Miracle’, CBS (Feb. 11, 2009, 8:18 PM), http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2004/01/06/60II/main591676.shtml (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
15 Jack Jennings & Diane Stark Rentner, Ten Big Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act
on Public Schools, 88 PHI DELTA KAPPAN 110 (2006), available at http://www.pdkmembers.
org/members_online/publications/Archive/pdf/k0610jen.pdf (arguing that NCLB has resulted
in negative school practices such as narrowing the curriculum to only tested subjects, has hurt
students with disabilities and students learning English as the tests are inappropriate for such
students, and has left states with tasks they are unable to complete because they lack funding).
16 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Duncan Says 82 Percent of America’s Schools Could “Fail” Under
NCLB This Year (Mar. 9, 2011), http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/duncan-says-82-
percent-americas-schools-could-fail-under-nclb-year (on file with the Harvard Law School
Library).
17 Id.; U.S. Dep’t of Educ., States Intending to Request ESEA Flexibility as of November
10, 2011 (Nov. 10, 2011), www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/states-intending-esea-flexibility.doc
(on file with the Harvard Law School Library); Sam Dillon, Obama Turns Some Powers of
Education Back to States, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 24, 2011, at A1.
16 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
factors are—if teachers simply have “high expectations” and are willing to
“work hard enough,” every school can achieve 100% proficiency.
Education analysts have pulled back the curtain on these “miracles” to
reveal the more nuanced realities. In his book Class and Schools,18 Richard
Rothstein challenges the dictum that schools can entirely overcome the effects
of poverty and environmental deprivation and obliterate the achievement
gap between students of different races—if only the teachers are good
enough. For example, he demonstrates that the success of KIPP, the network
of charter schools that have produced impressive results with disadvantaged
students, is as much about other factors as it is about teachers. He attributes
KIPP’s results to more advantaged students, significantly greater resources,
longer school hours and the extraordinary, if often short-lived, dedication of
the staff.19
Other researchers echo his conclusion, with one adding that additional
private funding and the high student attrition rate, especially of African-
American boys, also contribute to the appearance of better outcomes for the
KIPP schools.20 These sources of KIPP’s success, the critics say, cannot be
replicated on a larger scale or at the same cost as traditional schools, so
building on the KIPP model is not a practical way to reform entire school
systems, as some have advocated.21 David Levin of the KIPP network has
acknowledged that the KIPP model cannot be scaled up systematically
across the United States.22
It is imperative that researchers and policymakers scrutinize these “miracle”
stories of school reform that are touted as the answer to improving
schools and increasing student achievement, especially since our most vulnerable
students often are the unknowing victims of these uninformed and
misguided reform efforts. Prior to adopting policies based on miracle school
turnarounds and subjecting our most needy students to unsubstantiated reform
initiatives, there must be credible evidence and rigorous research to
support claims of dramatic improvement. Further, reformers who advocate
these “silver bullet” solutions as anything other than limited reforms must
be able to demonstrate how all students (not just some) will have access to a
quality education—they must be shown to be scalable and sustainable and
not the result of a single, tireless, charismatic leader often with substantial
amounts of funds not available to other public schools.
18 RICHARD ROTHSTEIN, CLASS AND SCHOOLS: USING SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND EDUCATIONAL
REFORM TO CLOSE THE BLACK-WHITE ACHIEVEMENT GAP (2004).
19 See id. at 74–75.
20 See GARY MIRON ET AL., WHAT MAKES KIPP WORK? A STUDY OF STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS,
ATTRITION, AND SCHOOL FINANCE, W. Mich. Univ. (2011), available at http://www.
edweek.org/media/kippstudy.pdf.
21 See id. at 30.
22 See STEVEN BRILL, CLASS WARFARE: INSIDE THE FIGHT TO FIX AMERICA’S SCHOOLS 423
(2011).
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 17
Alternative-Route Teachers
Similarly, while the accomplishments of a few bright, selfless, enthusiastic,
but uncredentialed, new teachers are praiseworthy, one wonders if
enough such extraordinary young people exist to staff even a fraction of our
needy schools, especially when few stay beyond two or three years. Burnout
and the desire to have the time and money to raise a family often diminish
their initial fervor.23
Teach for America (TFA), for example, requires its participants to stay
on the job for only two years, and while many remain for a third year, 72%
to 100% of TFA teachers left teaching in Houston by their third year, compared
to 31.6% to 54.8% of non-TFA teachers.24 Furthermore, the evidence
on effectiveness is mixed at best; several studies show that students of novice
TFA teachers perform worse in reading and math than those of credentialed
beginning teachers, although some studies show that the students of
the TFA teachers who remain and become fully credentialed do about the
same as other students.25 It is expensive and helps neither students nor the
teaching profession to have a constantly churning, inadequately trained
workforce, large numbers of whom are always just learning the ropes.26 This
is not an ideological issue. Indeed, I and so many others came into teaching
through alternative certification routes.
The bigger issue here is not simply how many alternatively certified
teachers burn out but, in general, the staggering attrition of new teachers.
Nearly half leave the profession within five years of being hired.27 The National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future found that teacher
turnover costs the nation $7.34 billion each year.28 So ignoring such huge
teacher turnover is not just bad education policy, it is bad economic policy.
23 Id. at 424–25 (providing a good example of this common phenomenon when a teacher
profiled in the book quit teaching for these very reasons).
24 See, e.g., Linda Darling-Hammond et al., Does Teacher Preparation Matter? Evidence
About Teacher Certification, Teach for America, and Teacher Effectiveness, 13 EDUC. POL’Y
ANALYSIS ARCHIVES (2005), http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/147/273 (on file with the
Harvard Law School Library).
25 See, e.g., JULIAN VASQUEZ HEILIG & SU JIN JEZ, TEACH FOR AMERICA: A REVIEW OF
THE EVIDENCE, at 5–8 (2010), available at http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/PB-TeachAmerica-
Heilig.pdf; but see generally Paul T. Decker et al., The Effects of Teach for America on Students:
Findings From a National Evaluation, MATHEMATICA POL’Y RES. (2004); Zeyu Xu et
al., Making a Difference: The Effect of Teach for America in High School, 30 J. OF POL’Y
ANALYSIS & MGMT. 447 (2007).
26 See NAT’L COMM’N ON TEACHING & AMERICA’S FUTURE, POLICY BRIEF: THE HIGH COST
OF TEACHER TURNOVER 11 (2007), available at http://www.nctaf.org/resources/demonstration_
projects/turnover/documents/NCTAFCostofTeacherTurnoverpolicybrief.pdf (The urban district
cost per teacher leaver is $8,750, and for non-urban district leavers the cost is $6,250.).
27 See NAT’L COMM’N ON TEACHING & AMERICA’S FUTURE, BEGINNING TEACHER ATTRITION
IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM fig.2, http://www.nctaf.org/documents/charts.pdf (on file with the
Harvard Law School Library).
28 NAT’L COMM’N ON TEACHING AND AMERICA’S FUTURE, POLICY BRIEF, supra note 26.
18 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
III. COLLABORATIVE POLICY REFORM ABROAD AND AT HOME
We can learn a great deal about how to reform our current system from
countries whose students outperform the United States in comparisons of
student achievement.
Top International Performers
A report analyzing the results of the Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA), shows the consequences of America’s failure to build on
“what works” in education. American students ranked in the middle of
countries participating in PISA.29 The most telling aspect of the results is the
stark difference between school improvement and teacher development practices
in the top-performing countries and prevailing approaches in the United
States.30
The top-performing countries on PISA—Finland, Singapore and South
Korea—all have educator development systems that are comprehensive and
coherent and that focus on the continual development of educators—from
selective recruitment practices through demanding teacher training, supportive
induction with opportunities for collaboration, and continual professional
development.31 They eschew heavy reliance on standardized tests, and each
has a well-rounded curriculum that teachers can tailor.32 In Finland, for example,
teachers are selected from the top third of their class and must go
through a rigorous exam and interview process.33 About one in five applicants
are chosen to complete teacher education, which is completely paid for
by the state.34 Training involves attaining a master’s degree and completing a
research project (there are no alternative routes to the classroom).35 Teachers
have considerable autonomy over the curriculum and the assessment of students.
36 Finnish teachers are virtually 100% unionized, and few teachers
leave the profession.37 The United States, on the other hand, has weak to
29 OECD, STRONG PERFORMERS AND SUCCESSFUL REFORMERS: LESSONS FROM THE PISA
FOR THE UNITED STATES 26, 58-59 (2011), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/50/
46623978.pdf; Randi Weingarten, Scaling Up Success, HUFFINGTON POST (Dec. 20, 2010, 2:23
PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randi-weingarten/scaling-up-success_b_799258.html.
30 See Weingarten, supra note 29.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 OECD, STRONG PERFORMERS AND SUCCESSFUL REFORMERS, supra note 29, at 124–26;
Nicholas D. Kristof, Pay Teachers More, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 13, 2001, at WK10.
34 OECD, STRONG PERFORMERS AND SUCCESSFUL REFORMERS, supra note 29, at 123–25;
Matthew Yglesias, Teacher Education in Finland, THINK PROGRESS (Dec. 12, 2008, 11:15
AM), http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2008/12/12/190893/teacher_education_in_finland/ (on
file with the Harvard Law School Library).
35 OECD, STRONG PERFORMERS AND SUCCESSFUL REFORMERS, supra note 29, at 125.
36 Id. at 126–27.
37 Pasi Sahlberg, Developing Effective Teachers and School Leaders: The Case of Finland,
in TEACHER AND LEADER EFFECTIVENESS IN HIGH-PERFORMING EDUCATION SYSTEMS 13
(Linda Darling-Hammond & Robert Rothman eds., 2011), available at http://www.all4ed.org/
files/TeacherLeaderEffectivenessReport.pdf.
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 19
non-existent entry criteria into teacher education, and the preparation rigor
varies enormously among the diverse institutions that prepare teachers.38
Similarly, alternative programs vary widely in the quality of their teacher
candidate selection processes and their preparation experiences.39
Shanghai, the top PISA performer (though not a country), emphasizes
support for struggling teachers and schools.40 When a school in Shanghai
confronts difficulties, authorities pair it with a high-performing school for
assistance and send whatever support is needed.41 South Korea provides increased
time for collaboration for teachers working in hard-to-staff schools.42
The United States, in contrast, too often replaces this thoughtful approach
with last-resort measures such as school closings and mass teacher firings.43
Furthermore, the top-performing countries provide a more equitable education
for all students and offset the effects of poverty through health and
social services that support students and their families.44 In the United
States, schools that provide even a few community services account for only
about five percent of all public schools.45
In sum, high-achieving countries treat teachers as professionals and
share responsibility for student outcomes.46 Furthermore, the countries most
often cited as high achieving are characterized by strong unions. School
officials and policymakers in high-achieving countries work with teachers
and their unions to develop and implement policies around curriculum, in-
38 AM. FED’N OF TEACHERS, K-16 TEACHER EDUC. TASK FORCE, BUILDING A PROFESSION:
STRENGTHENING TEACHER PREPARATION AND INDUCTION 7–11 (2000); see also JULIE GREENBERG
ET AL., NAT’L COUNCIL ON TEACHER QUALITY, STUDENT TEACHING IN THE UNITED
STATES 9–11 (2011).
39 C. EMILY FEISTRITZER, STATE POLICY TRENDS FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES TO TEACHER
CERTIFICATION: A MOVING TARGET 1 (2005), available at http://www.teach-now.org/CEFState
%20Overview%20FINAL4.pdf.
40 Weingarten, supra note 29.
41 Id.; OECD, STRONG PERFORMERS AND SUCCESSFUL REFORMERS, supra note 29, at 97;
Diane Ravitch, The Real Lessons of PISA, EDUC. WEEK (Dec. 14, 2010, 9:13 AM), http://
blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2010/12/the_real_lessons_of_pisa.html (on
file with the Harvard Law School Library).
42 Weingarten, supra note 29.
43 Id.; see also, e.g., Ben Chapman, Twenty Bloomberg Schools May Be Shut Down for
Poor Performance, N.Y. DAILY NEWS, Nov. 4, 2011, available at http://articles.nydailynews.
com/2011-11-04/news/30361673_1_new-schools-zakiyah-ansari-high-schools; Rachel
Monahan, City Wins Fight to Shut Down 22 Schools, Can Move On With Plan to Open 15
Charter Schools, N.Y. DAILY NEWS, July 22, 2011, available at http://articles.nydailynews.
com/2011-07-22/local/29818490_1_charter-schools-schools-chancellor-dennis-walcott-teach
ers-union; Bill Turque, D.C. Schools Insider – More Than 200 D.C. Teachers Fired, WASH.
POST (July 15, 2011, 12:49 PM), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-schools-insider/
post/more-than-200-dc-teachers-fired/2011/07/15/gIQADnTLGI_blog.html (on file with the
Harvard Law School Library).
44 OECD, STRONG PERFORMERS AND SUCCESSFUL REFORMERS, supra note 29, at 34–39,
69, 122, 167, 249.
45 See FAQs on Community Schools, NAT’L CTR. FOR CMTY. SCHS. (2009), http://national
centerforcommunityschools.childrensaidsociety.org/faqs/on-community-schools (on file with
the Harvard Law School Library); Fast Facts, NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STATISTICS, http://nces.
ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84 (last visited Nov. 26, 2011) (on file with the Harvard Law
School Library).
46 Weingarten, supra note 29.
20 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
struction, and student assessment.47 Compare this with what happens in the
United States, where teachers are routinely asked to accept policies made
without their input, and then blamed when the policies fail.48 And often
teachers are held solely accountable for student achievement, rather than the
mutual responsibility approach that has proven so successful in many other
countries.49
A Next-Door Case Study
A recent summit of high-performing countries, convened by the U.S.
Department of Education, Education International, and the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), highlighted what happened
in Ontario Province, Canada.50 There a conservative government had
instituted some reforms in accountability, curriculum, and assessments, but
it had also gone to war with teachers and their unions, publicly attacking
them and cutting funding.51 The result was a highly polarized environment,
teacher strikes, and lockouts, and no improvement in student performance.52
In 2003, a new premier wanted to change this climate and spent a lot of
time in schools talking about reform with teachers and their unions.53 Both
the government and the unions viewed teacher support for reform as critical
for success. So they focused on building a collaborative relationship from
the highest levels to the individual schools.
The role of the central ministry was to set clear expectations and
targets, provide funding, create a collective-bargaining agreement that would
support improved teaching and learning, and provide expertise and support
for struggling schools.54 The role of the district was to support the schools,
which was where change needed to occur.55 Political leaders met regularly
with the teachers’ unions and principals’ organizations, while larger groups
of stakeholders worked on specific issues.56
Central to gaining teacher support was the signing of two successive
four-year collective bargaining agreements consistent with the agreed-upon
educational strategy.57 They reduced class size, increased preparation time,
47 OECD, STRONG PERFORMERS AND SUCCESSFUL REFORMERS, supra note 29, at 238–39.
48 Weingarten, supra note 29.
49 Id.
50 OECD, BUILDING A HIGH-QUALITY TEACHING PROFESSION, supra note 1, at 57; Angel
Gurr´ıa, Building a High-Quality Teaching Profession, OECD (Mar. 17, 2011), http://www.
oecd.org/document/53/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_47386549_1_1_1_1,00.html (on file
with the Harvard Law School Library).
51 OECD, STRONG PERFORMERS AND SUCCESSFUL REFORMERS, supra note 29, at 72.
52 Id.
53 Id. at 72–73.
54 See id. at 72–75.
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Id. at 74.
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 21
and created a sustained period of labor peace that allowed for continued
focus on educational improvement.58
The OECD concluded that teachers accepted the reforms “because the
government consulted them on its implementation and ensured that it was
implemented by professionals, not bureaucrats.”59 Rather than putting centrally-
based “experts” in charge, staff was added at each school to be responsible
for student success.60 Teams of teachers, principals, and subjectmatter
specialists led each school’s transformation, thus building strength
and commitment from within rather than imposing the reforms from above.61
Since these changes were made, Ontario has gone from below-average
in international comparisons to among the very top performers, significantly
narrowing the achievement gap between groups of students at the same
time.62
An American Example
Closer to home, the ABC Unified School District in Los Angeles
County, with about 21,000 mostly minority students in about 30 schools,
half of them serving the most disadvantaged students, shows what can be
done when the schools, the community, and elected officials work together.63
In the spring of 2010, in an atmosphere of huge deficits and projected
massive layoffs, ABC district officials and union representatives sat down
together to devise the next year’s budget. Both sides wanted to prevent the
financial crisis from taking a toll on student achievement. The union’s opening
offer included four unpaid furlough days in return for a no-layoff guarantee.
Transparency and union participation in every step of the budget
process fostered the union’s willingness to participate in solutions. In the
end, the superintendent attributed the agreement to ongoing honesty and
trust.64
This was not always the case. In 1993, an eight-day strike had left the
relationship between union members and the district administration in tatters.
65 Schools were struggling, and students were lagging.66 Trying to wipe
58 Id.
59 OECD, BUILDING A HIGH-QUALITY TEACHING PROFESSION, supra note 1, at 57.
60 OECD, STRONG PERFORMERS AND SUCCESSFUL REFORMERS, supra note 29, at 74–75.
61 Id.
62 See id. at 65–78.
63 LOCAL LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIPS AS A VEHICLE TO ADVANCE REFORM:
FINDINGS FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S LABOR MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
8–11 (Jonathan Eckert et al., 2011); The ABC Unified School District, California, AM. FED’N
OF TEACHERS, http://www.aft.org/issues/schoolreform/csi/abcprofile.cfm (last visited Nov. 27,
2011) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library); ABC Unified School District, AM. FED’N
OF TEACHERS, http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/profile_abc0607.pdf (last visited Nov. 27,
2011) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
64 AM. FED’N OF TEACHERS, ABC FEDERATION OF TEACHERS (CALIFORNIA) 1–4 (2011).
65 LOCAL LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIPS AS A VEHICLE TO ADVANCE REFORM,
supra note 63, at 8.
66 ABC Unified School District, supra note 63.
22 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
the slate clean, the local union president began to reach out to district administrators,
and members worked for the election of a more collaborative
Board of Education. After five years the effort paid off.67 With the help of
the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in 1999, the district and the
union, intent on cooperation, invested in ongoing labor-management training
from Harvard and Rutgers Universities.68
Out of those meetings came a hugely successful targeted reading collaborative
for schools with many special education and limited-English students.
69 Spreading their partnership wider, the union and the administration
collaborated on everything from curriculum and the use of data to improve
student achievement, to an innovative program to mentor new teachers.70
The results have been promising. Over the last seven years, the district’s
achievement scores on state tests rose an average of approximately eleven
percent per year to exceed the state average, and today about eighty-five
percent of its graduates go on to higher education.71
To date, more than six hundred ABC Unified School District teachers
and administrators have received intensive professional development
through the AFT. To ensure the productive partnership continues, district
and union leaders meet weekly. Both say the work is hard but vital. “It’s
easier to be adversarial because then you don’t have to be responsible. You
spit and run and that’s it,” the union president said.72 Now their work has
been given a further boost by a grant from the AFT Innovation Fund to bring
labor-management collaboration from the district/union level to the school
level.73
67 Jennifer Dubin, From Picket Line to Partnership: A Union, a District, and Their Thriving
Schools, AM. EDUCATOR, Spring 2009, at 14, 14–15.
68 LOCAL LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIPS AS A VEHICLE TO ADVANCE REFORM,
supra note 63, at 8, 10.
69 ABC Unified School District, supra note 63.
70 LOCAL LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIPS AS A VEHICLE TO ADVANCE REFORM,
supra note 63, at 9–10.
71 History/Info, ABC UNIFIED SCH. DIST., http://www.abcusd.k12.ca.us/about_abc.jsp (last
visited Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library); Academic Performance
Index (API) Report for ABC Unified School District, CAL. DEP’T OF EDUC., http://api.cde.ca.
gov/reports/API/APISearchName.asp?TheYear=&cTopic=API&cLevel=District&cName=
ABC^Unified&cCounty=&cTimeFrame=S (last visited Nov.28, 2011) (on file with the
Harvard Law School Library).
72 American Federation of Teachers, Case Studies in Collaboration: An AFT Series, ABC
Federation of Teachers (California) (July 2011), at 2.
73 LOCAL LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIPS AS A VEHICLE TO ADVANCE REFORM,
supra note 63, at 10–11. In 2007, the AFT initiated its Innovation Fund to help local and state
affiliates implement groundbreaking solutions for our most pressing education problems. The
Fund has made more than fifteen grants to support innovative work across the nation. Grantees
are opening teacher-designed charter schools, developing a national institute to spread best
practices in labor-management cooperation, creating online professional networks to support
teachers as their districts redesign their evaluation and pay systems, and much more. The
thread running through all of the projects is collaboration with districts and community partners.
See Now Seeking Bright Ideas!, AM. FED’N OF TEACHERS, http://www.aft.org/about/
innovate/ (last visited Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 23
IV. THE TEACHER-TEACHERS’ UNION LINK
Recognizing that they cannot afford to alienate the millions of teachers
who must implement their ideas, some “dictate and dismiss” reformers try
to make a distinction between teachers and their union leaders by pointing
out that their criticisms are reserved for teachers’ unions, not teachers. Unions,
they argue, are the ones who resist reform; they will be glad to listen to
teachers—one by one.
But evidence for the alleged split between teachers’ unions and their
members over reform is completely lacking. In fact, teacher support for
teachers’ unions is growing, and it is growing fastest among newer members.
In an extensive national survey in 2008, a majority of teachers (union and
non-union) said unions were “absolutely essential,” eight percentage points
more than had agreed with that statement five years earlier.74 Among union
members, about two out of three agreed.75 And among all teachers, only
eleven percent saw unions as something they “could do without.”76
And, contrary to the canard that unions are obstacles to reform, studies
show that districts with strong unions and teachers are able to implement
some of the most successful reforms.77 Both domestically and abroad, many
of the highest performing school systems are unionized.78
Indeed, Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education
and the Economy, conducted an in-depth comparative study of teacher
unionism in the United States, Northern Europe, and Canada and concluded
that it is counterproductive for reformers to seek to weaken unions.79 The
result, he says, is that union members, feeling that they are under attack and
their job security is threatened, are likely to be frightened away from
reform.80
Contrast Tucker’s view with that of Joel Klein, who decried collaboration
as an opiate for those opposed to change.81 He listed unions and politicians
as among the “status-quo crowd.”82 He is wrong to generalize on both
counts.
The AFT and many of our affiliates are participating in—and in many
cases leading—efforts to strengthen teaching and learning. Further, we
would not have all the federal and state attention to improving public education
that we have had in recent years if politicians supported the status quo.
74 ANN DUFFETT ET AL., WAITING TO BE WON OVER 8 (2008).
75 Id.
76 Id.
77 OECD, BUILDING A HIGH-QUALITY TEACHING PROFESSION, supra note 1, at 51.
78 OECD, STRONG PERFORMERS AND SUCCESSFUL REFORMERS, supra note 29, at 238–39.
79 NAT’L CTR. ON EDUC. & THE ECON., TEACHERS, THEIR UNIONS, THE AMERICAN EDUCATION
REFORM AGENDA 9–10 (2011), available at http://www.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/
2011/03/Teachers-and-Their-Unions-NCEE-March-2011-FinalDRM.pdf.
80 Id.
81 Klein, supra note 11, at 73.
82 Id.
24 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
Unfortunately, name-calling instead of engaging in constructive discussion
is often evident in reform discussions. Those who do not agree with the
“dictate and dismiss” approach are often derided as “reform averse” or
“embracing the status quo.”
Union-led Reform
In many places, unions have been in the vanguard of education reform,
particularly related to teacher quality, curriculum standards, and services beyond
instruction that students need. In fact, the AFT distributes more than
one million dollars each year through its Innovation Fund to foster union-led
reforms aimed at improving student performance.83 Among the projects the
Fund is supporting are initiatives to design and implement new ways to evaluate
and pay teachers, implement and provide training for the new national
Common Core standards, establish in-district public charter schools, expand
community schools that offer health and social services to students and their
families, and many others.84 Barbara Byrd-Bennett, former superintendent
of the Cleveland Public Schools and an Innovation Fund board member,
calls the Fund “an incubator for dramatic teacher-led reform,” adding that
“[i]t will only happen, I believe, if it comes from within.”85
Here are two examples of local unions that have pioneered important
education reforms.
School Improvement in New York
One of New York City Chancellor Rudy Crew’s first initiatives in 1996
was to create a “Chancellor’s District” of low-performing schools that were
not being adequately served by their local community school districts.86
Three years later the union and the district devised a pilot program for fortyseven
elementary and middle schools in the Chancellor’s District.87
Designed to demonstrate many of the strategies that the union and the
new Chancellor supported, the program included class size reductions, a
longer school day for tutoring and small-group remediation, a common curriculum
aligned with high standards, common teacher planning time, a
longer year for teachers for professional development, and a school site labor-
management collaborative governance structure.88
83 See, e.g., Memorandum from Ann Bradley, Dir., AFT Innovation Fund, to AFT Exec.
Council (Oct. 18, 2011) (on file with author).
84 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFT INNOVATION FUND: INVESTING IN UNIONLED
SOLUTIONS, available at http://www.aft.org/pdfs/about/IFoverview.pdf.
85 Id.
86 DEINYA PHENIX ET AL., VIRTUAL DISTRICT, REAL IMPROVEMENT: A RETROSPECTIVE
EVALUATION OF THE CHANCELLOR’S DISTRICT, 1996-2003 1 (2004), available at http://www.
nyu.edu/steinhardt/iesp/ChanDistRpt.pdf.
87 Id. at 8.
88 Id. at 8–10.
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 25
Most of these Extended Time Schools (ETS), located in the city’s
roughest neighborhoods, had been staffed primarily by inexperienced, uncertified
teachers, and were plagued by high teacher turnover. A fifteen percent
salary increase, based on the extra work time required, was offered to attract
fully certified teachers. Hiring was done by a committee of teachers. Current
teachers had the opportunity to apply or transfer to another school. At
least half of the positions were reserved for current teachers, but they, like
all the teachers, were to be selected based on qualifications, not seniority.89
The higher salaries, combined with the schools’ collegial atmosphere, resulted
not only in highly qualified staffs but also very low attrition rates. In
2003, for example, five teachers transferred out of the forty schools, compared
with an average of one per school for similar schools.90
Students in ETS schools made rapid gains. From 1999 to 2002, ETS
schools gained 7.7 points in the percentage of students meeting reading standards,
versus a 2.9 point gain citywide. In math, the ETS schools gained 9.8
points compared with 3.6 points for schools citywide.91 Children in the lowest
reading group, whose scores are often the most intractable, made the
most dramatic gains. The schools continued to excel until Chancellor Klein
dismantled the Chancellor’s District in 2003.92 Sadly, because new school
superintendents are eager to put their imprimatur on their districts, it is not
unusual for even successful programs like the Chancellor’s District in New
York City to be terminated when a new Superintendent arrives.93
Teacher Evaluation in Toledo
The Toledo (Ohio) Federation of Teachers, taking its cue from former
AFT president Al Shanker, pioneered the idea that teachers, as professionals,
should assume responsibility for the quality of their colleagues’ performance.
94 In the early 1980s, the Toledo union’s new president, Dal Lawrence,
became dissatisfied with the failure of most principals to adequately support
and assess classroom teachers, leaving the union with the awkward role of
defending weak teachers.95 Growing tension between the union and the ad-
89 Memorandum from Howard S. Tames, Exec. Dir., Bd. of Educ. of the City of New
York, to All Regularly Appointed or State Certified Teachers, Guidance Counselors, School
Secretaries and UFT Paraprofessionals (June 23, 1999) (on file with author).
90 Maisie McAdoo, Reality Check, N.Y. TEACHER, Apr. 27, 2006.
91 AM. FED’N OF TEACHERS, ETS SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS (2006).
92 Id.
93 Id.
94 See Toledo Plan, TOLEDO FED’N OF TEACHERS, http://www.tft250.org/the_toledo_plan.
htm (last visited Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library); Stephen
Sawchuk, Peer Review Undergoing Revitalization, EDUC. WEEK, Nov. 18, 2009, at 20, available
at http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/ostrc/docs/document_library/ppd/Professionalism/Peer%20
Review%20Undergoing%20Revitalization.pdf.
95 A User’s Guide to Peer Assistance and Review, HARVARD GRADUATE SCH. OF EDUC.,
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par/practice/toledo.html (last visited Nov. 27, 2011) (on file
with the Harvard Law School Library); see also Ten Questions: Toledo Plan, TOLEDO FED’N OF
TEACHERS, http://tft250.org/ten_questions.htm (last visited Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the
Harvard Law School Library).
26 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
ministration over teacher terminations poisoned their entire working relationship.
96 Lawrence proposed a new system of teacher-to-teacher
performance review that included support and mentoring for floundering
teachers, instead of just an assessment.97 Both union members and supervisors
had to be convinced to sign on to the system, though for entirely different
reasons, but the result was the adoption of a collaborative Peer
Assistance and Review (PAR) plan.98
Under the plan, new teachers were mentored by specially trained experienced
teachers before they were granted tenure.99 If the mentor found a
novice wanting, the new teacher was counseled out of the profession.100 In
addition, both management and the union could identify tenured teachers for
assistance and evaluation.101 If, after receiving extensive help, the tenured
teacher did not improve sufficiently, the peer reviewer could recommend
dismissal and denial of union representation at a dismissal hearing.102
In Toledo, the PAR program103 was only the first innovation in years of
fruitful collaboration on myriad issues at the district and building levels: the
use of student data to improve achievement, performance pay, textbook selection,
attendance improvement, and many others.104
Numerous teachers’ union locals nationwide have adopted peer assistance
and review programs.105 In general, teacher-led systems are more rigorous
in evaluating new and experienced teachers than the systems they
replace.106
Reform Contracts
Required by the NCLB to have accountability systems based on standardized
test results, but wanting to mitigate the counterproductive elements
and often punitive sanctions of the NCLB, more districts are opting for comprehensive
contracts built on collaborative labor-management relationships
96 Id.
97 Id.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 Id.
101 Id.
102 Id.
103 Today PAR is such an integral part of the Toledo evaluation system that in 2011, Toledo
teachers opted for a pay cut in order to preserve the PAR program as well as specialized
student services such as art, music, and physical education. Toledo School Board, Teachers’
Union Approve New Deal, NORTHWESTOHIO.COM, http://www.northwestohio.com/news/story.
aspx?id=635019#.TzgjZV2Q2Rk (last visited Feb. 12, 2012) (on file with the Harvard Law
School Library).
104 RUBINSTEIN & MCCARTHY, supra note 8, at 29–34; Janet Romaker, Performance
Shows Up in TPS Teachers’ Paychecks, TOLEDO BLADE (Sept. 9, 2009), http://www.
toledoblade.com/local/2009/09/22/Performance-shows-up-in-TPS-teachers-paychecks.html
(on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
105 Sawchuk, supra note 94.
106 See Julie Koppich, Spotlighting Teacher Quality: A Review of Teacher Evaluation 27
(Paper prepared for the K–12 Program Policy Council of the American Federation of Teachers,
1998).
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 27
in which the district administration and the union share responsibility for
improving student learning. They have not become the norm in large part
because the national environment has not been conducive to enabling them.
For example, a new Tennessee law suspends teacher negotiations indefinitely,
and limits “conferences” to wages, benefits (excluding pensions),
leave, grievance procedures, dues, insurance, and working conditions.107
Nevertheless, in the past several years union locals and school districts
across the country have moved, at varying speeds, toward collaborative reform,
including AFT local affiliates in Norfolk, Virginia; Plattsburgh, New
York; St. Francis, Minnesota; Baltimore, Maryland; and elsewhere.108 Below
are two outstanding examples of such collaborative bargaining.
New Haven
At the same time that District of Columbia school superintendent
Michelle Rhee was clashing very publicly with teachers in the District on
issues of teacher quality, job security, and school closings, the New Haven
(Connecticut) Federation of Teachers and the School District were working
collaboratively on a contract that addressed many of the same issues and
avoided the confrontational politics so prevalent in Washington, D.C.109
One of the most contentious issues nationwide is what to do about persistently
failing schools and their teachers, especially as more schools have
fallen short of the NCLB-required Annual Yearly Progress. But a few cities
like New Haven have pursued constructive, collaborative approaches that
enable relationships that are both trusting and mission-driven. In New Haven
four struggling schools that are being reconstituted without layoffs are
now operating as unionized, in-district charter schools with the ability to
waive some district regulations and contractual provisions.110 Because
teachers applied and were selected to work in those schools, school leaders
may only modify the original school plan with a vote of two-thirds of the
staff.111 Other schools also may waive contract provisions, but for them that
107 Professional Educators Collaborative Conferencing Act of 2011 § 6, TENN. CODE ANN.
§ 49-5-601, § 49-5-608 (2011).
108 Examples From the Field, AM. FED’N OF TEACHERS, http://www.aft.org/issues/
standards/student-assess/assess-examples.cfm (last visited Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the
Harvard Law School Library); AFT Locals Shine at National Collaboration Conference, AM.
FED’N OF TEACHERS, http://www.aft.org/newspubs/news/2011/021811collabconf.cfm (last visited
Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
109 See NEW HAVEN BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE NEW HAVEN FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, LOCAL 933, AFT, AFL-CIO, JULY 1, 2010–JUNE 30, 2014 (2010), available at
http://ct.aft.org/nhft/index.cfm?action=article&articleID=85bd221c-1581-4eac-8480-f980cbe
f9325 (the contract between the union and the school district in New Haven).
110 Id. at 63–68; Melissa Bailey, At “Turnaround,” Half the Teachers Will Stay, NEW
HAVEN INDEP. (May 31, 2011 8:37 AM), http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/
archives/entry/wexler_grant_turnaround/ (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
111 NEW HAVEN BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE NEW HAVEN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
supra note 105, at 65–66.
28 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
requires a seventy-five percent vote.112 The agreement makes explicit the
intended collaborative nature of these schools:
It is the intent of the Parties that teachers and administrators in
these schools will work collaboratively to create effective learning
environments for students. Teachers, other school staff and parents
shall have a voice in designing programs and determining
work rules that are likely to be successful in such schools.113
Teacher evaluation, too, has been overhauled. The new system measures
three components of teacher effectiveness—student growth outcomes,
teacher instructional practices, and teacher professional values—on a five
point scale ranging from one (“needs improvement”) to five (“exemplary”).
114 Specially trained teachers from outside the school review and reassess
any teacher receiving the lowest—or highest—rating.115
Teachers who receive an “exemplary” rating are eligible for leadership
positions supporting other teachers.116 Teachers receiving a two rating (“developing”)
receive a written Plan of Improvement and immediate professional
development.117 Teachers who receive a “needs improvement” rating
receive a Plan for Improvement and even more intense support, including
coaching.118 If they do not improve, they are subject to end of the year
sanctions.119
An editorial in the New York Times lauded New Haven’s teacher development
and evaluation plan, saying that it shows “that with genuine effort
school systems can upgrade the teacher corps in a fairly short period of
time.”120 Further, the editorial noted, the “promising results show what can
be done when the two sides commit to reform.”121
Overseeing all the reform efforts, grouped under the rubric School
Change, and empowered to resolve any issues that arise, is a joint labor-
112 Id. at 61.
113 Id. at 63.
114 Melissa Bailey, The Evaluation: Episode Two, NEW HAVEN INDEP. (Apr. 1, 2011,
11:07 AM), http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/turnaround_tvals/
(on file with the Harvard Law School Library); Melissa Bailey, New Eval System Pushes
Out 34 Teachers, NEW HAVEN INDEP. (Sept. 13, 2011, 7:07 AM), http://www.newhaveninde
pendent.org/index.php/archives/entry/new_eval_system_pushes_34_teachers_out/id_40147#
(on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
115 Thomas MacMillan, New Evals Link Teacher, Student Performance, NEW HAVEN INDEP.
(Apr. 27, 2010, 10:02 AM), http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/
entry/teacher_evaluation/ (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
116 Id.
117 See id.
118 See id.
119 Bailey, New Eval System Pushes Out 34 Teachers, supra note 114. Data from the first
year of the teacher evaluation system show that close to three-quarters of New Haven’s roughly
1,850 teachers scored in the top three categories. Seventy-five teachers had ratings that put
them at risk of being dismissed. Thirty-four of those teachers resigned or retired; the others
improved enough to keep their jobs. Id.
120 Editorial, New Haven’s Teacher Improvement Plan: Rigorous Evaluations Make It Possible
to Identify, Retrain or Push Out Bad Teachers, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 26, 2011, at A28.
121 Id.
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 29
management-parent committee, thus institutionalizing a strong teacher voice
in school and district decision-making.122 In what an Economic Development
Corporation of New Haven press release called a “capstone” for the
New Haven school reform initiative, Yale University promised college tuition
and support to qualified public school graduates in the classes of 2011
through 2014.123 The press release went on to say, “School Change has been
heralded as a national model for education reform because of its progressive
yet collaborative approach with unions.”124
Pittsburgh
Before 2005, Pittsburgh Public Schools had all the earmarks of a declining
urban school system, losing thousands of students every year to the
suburbs and private schools, with dozens of half-empty schools kept open at
great expense by politics and a fractured board.125 Student achievement was
lagging so badly that the state was talking takeover.126 The workforce was
becoming increasingly restive because of ever-smaller raises, and the adversarial
relationship between labor and management was perpetuated by a lawyer-
dominated collective bargaining tradition.127
But several factors fostered change: new union leadership, the first in
decades; a new, nontraditional superintendent; a union strike-authorization
vote; and an exciting promise from anonymous benefactors of college scholarships
for Pittsburgh public school graduates.128 Due to budget constraints,
the system was streamlined by school closings and reorganizations; union
and district leaders began to question the efficacy of traditional adversarial
negotiations; and everybody united around the Pittsburgh Promise scholarship
offer.129
When an outside consultant hired by the district produced a revised
curriculum that teachers found completely inadequate, the superintendent
cancelled the consultant contract and challenged teachers to write a better
one.130 The nearly two hundred teachers involved in that project became its
emissaries in the schools and new advocates for a greater teacher voice in
district policies.131
122 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN AND THE NEW HAVEN BOARD OF
EDUCATION AND THE NEW HAVEN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, Appendix B, 5 (2009), available
at http://www.edweek.org/media/newhaven_teachers_contract.pdf.
123 ECON. DEV. CORP. OF NEW HAVEN, NEW HAVEN PROMISE, available at http://www.
edcnewhaven.com/component/content/article/5/143.html.
124 Id.
125 Sean D. Hamill, Forging a New Partnership: The Story of Teacher Union and School
District Collaboration in Pittsburgh, ASPEN INST., June 2011, at 4.
126 Id.
127 Id. at 4, 7–8.
128 Id. at 4, 6–8.
129 Id.
130 Id. at 8–9.
131 Id. at 8.
30 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
By 2008, the superintendent and union president were finding common
ground. Both were unhappy with inadequate teacher evaluations and wanted
a more fine-grained system.132 This time they knew to involve front-line
school-based staff and enlisted the input of school leadership teams and a
teacher survey.133 When they asked for schools to volunteer for a pilot program
in 2009, they saw their collaboration pay off with roughly half the
schools asking to participate, despite the controversial nature of the plan,
which included a career ladder/performance pay system for teachers.134 For
the union president, it was an affirmation that the members had developed
trust in his reform leadership.
Attracted by their collaborative reform efforts, the Gates Foundation
invited the union and district to compete for a $40 million grant to improve
student performance.135 Three months of close, intensive work to write the
proposal sealed the working relationship between the former adversaries.136
They developed the plan, without the lawyers, as if it were a blueprint for a
contract, which it would have to become if they got the grant.137 They not
only were awarded the Gates money, but also received a federal grant for
another $37.4 million for implementation.138
The contract, which also included a teaching academy, an alternative
teacher certification route, an extension of the new-teacher probationary period,
and a system to identify and place the most effective teachers where
they were most needed, was approved by a greater than 2 to 1 margin.139
Collaboration on contract implementation continues to this day, as the details
of many items were left to be worked out by joint committees.140 Moreover,
Pittsburgh attained Adequate Yearly Progress under the NCLB for the
first time in 2009 and again in 2011.141
It is clear from the brief case studies described above that teachers and
their unions can achieve significant progress on school improvement, enhanced
teacher effectiveness, and greater student achievement when they
work together with their district management partners. Unions are not afraid
of change; they recognize problems, and they want to help provide solutions.
132 Id. at 9–10.
133 Id.
134 Id. at 10, 13, 14.
135 Id. at 10–12.
136 See id. at 12–13.
137 Id.
138 Id. at 12, 15.
139 Id. at 13, 15.
140 See id. at 15.
141 Id. at 4; Kaitlynn Riely, Pittsburgh Schools Achieve Adequate Yearly Progress, PITTSBURGH
POST-GAZETTE (Sept. 1, 2011, 3:22 PM), http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11244/
1171469-100.stm (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 31
V. HOW TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING—TWO PROPOSALS
I have spent the major part of this essay building the case for a teacher
voice in school reform. If you’ve read this far, you may be wondering what
you will hear if you listen to teachers in your home district. I cannot give
you a simple answer to that question. The specifics may vary from state to
state or town to town. That is why this article is not about one single teachers’
union voice in reform; it is about the local teacher voice. Teachers know
their students and their schools. The reform efforts in Toledo, New Haven,
and Pittsburgh demonstrate that when teachers are given a voice in the process,
solutions customized to the needs of individual districts can be developed,
leading to improved student performance. With mutual respect and
trust, communities can work together to figure out the best solution based on
that community’s needs.
Of course, there are basics like teacher preparation and ongoing support;
high standards, bolstered by a strong, engaging curriculum; adequate
resources to ensure appropriate conditions for teaching and learning; and
equitable funding to ensure that kids who need the most get the required
resources. In that vein, here are two specific reforms that the AFT has endorsed:
community schools and a system of continuous teacher development
and evaluation. We believe that they will lead to better teaching and learning
if they are implemented collaboratively.
Community Schools
Good teaching is certainly critical to student learning, but there are
myriad factors in every child’s life that are beyond the teacher’s control that
may deeply affect a child’s ability to perform well in school. Sadly, on average,
there are more impediments to learning in the lives of poor children
(limited exposure to books and other learning materials, health problems related
to poor nutrition, and housing conditions that expose children to lead
and other debilitating environmental hazards, to name a few) than there are
in the lives of children from more privileged families. If we are ever to
close the achievement gap, we must address those out of school, environmental
factors that impede learning. This is especially important now when
the struggling economy has increased the pressures on families, and issues
ranging from health-related problems to joblessness, and traumas such as
death or divorce are creating even greater instability in many children’s lives.
The United States is the world’s wealthiest nation, yet recent census
figures show that roughly twenty million Americans are in “deep poverty,”
a category that includes families of four trying to survive on about $200 or
less a week.142 Poverty affects 16.4 million children—more than one in
142 CARMEN DENAVAS-WALT ET AL., INCOME, POVERTY, AND HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
IN THE UNITED STATES: 2010, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 19 (2011), available at http://www.
census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf; ThinkProgress Economy, THINKPROGRESS, http://
32 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
five.143 The poverty rates for African-American and Hispanic children are
far higher—38.2% and 35%, respectively.144 Suburban poverty has
soared.145
When used in conjunction with highly effective classroom interventions,
a direct and effective antidote to the effects of poverty on learning is to
provide accessible and family-friendly services right in the school—services
that “wrap around” the traditional school offerings.146 This does not necessarily
mean an expansion of the school district’s responsibilities. Instead,
schools should coordinate with local providers—municipalities, hospitals
and medical groups, universities, YMCA’s, Boys and Girls Clubs, Scouts,
and small local nonprofits—to establish service delivery points in school
buildings. At the same time, the use of these services makes the school
more inviting to families who otherwise may not be involved with their children’s
education. Funding comes largely from state and federal sources and
private donors. Coordinating services is likely to be more effective and efficient,
particularly in an economic climate where funds are becoming more
constricted every day.
Community schools are open beyond regular school hours for tutoring
and homework assistance and recreational activities as well as medical, dental,
and mental health services. Depending on neighborhood needs, families
and other community residents may also benefit from legal advice, immigration
assistance, employment counseling, housing help and English-language
or GED instruction. These services, while aimed at adults, also alleviate the
family crises and stresses that interfere with children’s concentration on
schoolwork.
Providers are not simply independent agencies using school facilities;
rather, together they form a carefully constructed network of supports for
children and their families that are coordinated to assure that services address
the education needs of children. Teachers are a critical focal point for
coordinating the services that each child needs and for ensuring that supplemental
academic services are connected with what children are learning in
school.
Community schools are not a new concept. Successful models exist
worldwide. The Children’s Aid Society, which pioneered the concept in
1992, operates programs in twenty-plus New York City Schools,147 and the
thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/22/326598/deep-poverty-increase-40-states/ (last visited
Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
143 DENAVAS-WALT, supra note 142, at 68.
144 Id. at 70, 73.
145 ELIZABETH KNEEBONE & EMILY GARR, BROOKINGS, THE SUBURBANIZATION OF POVERTY:
TRENDS IN METROPOLITAN AMERICA, 2000 TO 2008 (2010), available at http://www.
brookings.edu/papers/2010/0120_poverty_kneebone.aspx.
146 THEODORA CHANG, CTR. FOR AM. PROGRESS, MAXIMIZING THE PROMISE OF COMMUNITY
SCHOOLS: STREAMLINING WRAPAROUND SERVICES FOR ESEA 1 (2011), available at http:/
/www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/pdf/wraparound_report.pdf.
147 Community Schools, CHILDREN’S AID SOC’Y, http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/
community-schools (last visited Nov. 19, 2011) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library)
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 33
approach is integral to Geoffrey Canada’s renowned Harlem Children’s
Zone.148
The Oyler School in Cincinnati became a K–12 Community Learning
Center (CLC) in 2005 and is now a model for the entire school district.149
Service providers throughout the community are involved in the school and
have helped contribute to improved student achievement and increased graduation
rates.150 Based on the Oyler model, Community Learning Centers are
opening and expanding throughout the Cincinnati school district.151 Currently
there are twenty-eight fully functioning CLCs.152 Started as part of an
effort to rebuild aging schools, the program provides funds to build schoolbased
health centers for students and the community, including vision, dental,
and social services.153 These schools remain open for enrichment programs,
tutoring, and adult education programs, including English as a second
language and computer literacy.154 Recreation programs, athletics, and music
and art programs provide opportunities for students to participate in
structured activities after the school day.155 Higher student test scores, better
(explaining their partnership with the Department of Education and provision of year-round,
daily, high quality services to the surrounding community).
148 See The HCZ Project: 100 Blocks, One Bright Future, HARLEM CHILDREN’S ZONE,
http://www.hcz.org/about-us/the-hcz-project (last visited Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the
Harvard Law School Library); History, HARLEM CHILDREN’S ZONE, http://www.hcz.org/aboutus/
history (last visited Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library) (explaining
their mission serving over 17,000 children and parents in Harlem from before birth through
college to address the needs of the entire community and aimed at ending the cycle of
poverty).
149 Chris Kenning, Cincinnati’s Oyler Elementary Finds Winning Formula to Fight Poverty,
CINCINNATI COURIER-J., Apr. 23, 2011, available at http://www.courier-journal.com/arti
cle/20110423/NEWS010503/304240059/Cincinnati-s-Oyler-Elementary-finds-winning-formu
la-fight-poverty.
150 Id.; see also Oyler School: 2009-2010 School Report Card, OHIO DEP’T OF EDUC.
(2010), available at http://www.ode.state.oh.us/reportcardfiles/2009-2010/BUILD/029009.
PDF (showing an increase in the School Performance Index for every year since 2007).
151 Kenning, supra note 149.
152 See 21st Century Community Learning Center: Aligning School and Afterschool
Learning Opportunities, AFTERSCHOOL ALLIANCE, http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/21cclc
alignment.pdf (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
153 CPS Community Learning Centers: Community Partnerships Transforming Schools
and Neighborhoods, CINCINNATI PUB. SCH., http://www.cps-k12.org/community/CLC/CLC.
htm (last visited Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library); The Resource
Wire: School-Based Health Clinics: Improving Attendance and Academic Success, CINCINNATI
PUB. SCH., http://www.cps-k12.org/Community/CLC/CLCNews/CLCNewsApr11.pdf (last
visited Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
154 Jessica Brown, Study Confirms Value of CPS’ Learning Centers, CINCINNATI.COM
(Nov. 18, 2011, 8:02 PM), http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111118/NEWS0102/111190
312/Study-confirms-value-CPS-learning-centers (on file with the Harvard Law School Library);
Community Learning Centers Summary 2008, CINCINNATI PUB. SCH., http://www.cpsk12.
org/Community/CLC/CLCSummary2008.pdf (last visited Nov. 27, 2011) (on file with the
Harvard Law School Library).
155 See SARAH DESCHENES & HELEN JANC MALONE, HARVARD FAMILY RESEARCH PROJECT
YEAR-ROUND LEARNING: LINKING SCHOOL, AFTERSCHOOL, AND SUMMER LEARNING TO
SUPPORT STUDENT SUCCESS 4, 17 (2011), available at http://www.hfrp.org/var/hfrp/storage/
fckeditor/File/YearRoundLearning-FINAL-062311.pdf.
34 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
attendance, and greater parent involvement rates are some of the positive
outcomes of the CLC model in Cincinnati.156
Community schools are a wonderful expression of a community’s intention
to help its children thrive. And when done right, they provide the
means to efficiently coordinate services that municipalities are already mandated
to deliver.
Teacher Development and Evaluation
No teacher wants an ineffective teacher in the classroom. Conversely,
no teacher wants an effective teacher tossed out of the profession because
teacher evaluations are nonexistent, broken, or mishandled, or because principals
are playing politics or favorites.
Some believe that the fundamental problem with teacher quality is that
it is too hard and takes too long to remove ineffective teachers. But the
reason that due process for alleged incompetence can be so long and cumbersome
is that in many instances there has been no credible evaluation system,
no support when teachers fall short, and no accountability when
administrators fail to fulfill their responsibilities.
Neither the occasional “drive-by” supervisory check-list observation
system, nor a teacher evaluation system premised on standardized testing
results alone is a reliable way of determining who is an effective teacher.
They are cheap, “quick fixes” for the absence of a credible teacher evaluation
system and, as is usual with quick fixes, they are inadequate and likely
to lead to lengthy legal disputes. When the judicial system—the court system,
the hearing before an arbitrator—becomes the place where the competence
of an individual teacher gets litigated, and the arbitrator, who is
concerned with procedural issues, not with teacher competence, decides on
whether to retain or dismiss a teacher, the process can become long, costly,
and cumbersome.
An evaluation system that focuses solely on the sorting function of
teacher evaluation, that is, removing a tiny minority of teachers, without
focusing on the developmental function of improving the vast majority of
teachers, will not ensure that all students are taught by the excellent teachers
they deserve. Nor will a system that merely sorts teachers into performance
categories (e.g., inadequate, needs improvement, adequate, effective, exemplary)
but fails to provide opportunities for improving practice along a performance
continuum lead to an improved teacher workforce.
Some economists and statisticians, who know little about pedagogy, try
to reduce teaching to a number—a regression analysis—with the implication
being that you can fire your way to good teaching. That is a flawed approach.
It defies the abundant research that shows that current standardized
test results and the statistical models employed to determine the “value added”
to student learning by a teacher are insufficient on their own to identify
156 Brown, supra note 154; see also DESCHENES & MALONE, supra note 155.
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 35
with reasonable certainty teacher expertise.157 It also fails to recognize that
teachers—not unlike other professionals—improve over time and with
support.158
In addition, evaluations by the numbers, which rely heavily on student
test scores tied to rewards and punishments for teachers, encourage teaching
to the test—a practice that is particularly damaging when there are so many
questions about the validity and reliability of today’s standardized tests and
their relevance to the knowledge and skills that students need to be successful
in the 21st century.159
Teachers embrace real evaluation systems that help inform their practice.
In 2010–2011, the AFT and the American Institutes for Research conducted
an in-depth study, using surveys, focus groups and case studies, of
so-called Generation Y teachers, those in their 30s or younger, to find out
what would keep them in the profession.160 They told us they want to be
evaluated in a fair way and to be provided feedback on their performance;
they need time to collaborate with their colleagues; they support differentiated
pay for high performance; and they want opportunities to use technology
for instruction and for collaborating with colleagues.161 Clearly,
Generation Y teachers want to be evaluated, but they also want to learn—
from their peers and their supervisors—to be the best teachers they can be.
And they want to be recognized and rewarded.
The AFT, initially on our own and later in cooperation with the American
Association of School Administrators (AASA), has developed a framework
for creating a comprehensive, fair, transparent, and expedient
evaluation process that can serve several functions—identifying teacher effectiveness,
improving teacher performance, and, when necessary, providing
the data to justify removing ineffective teachers. Comprehensive evaluation
systems based on the framework have been initiated in AFT local affiliate
districts in Cleveland, Ohio; Douglas County, Colorado; New Haven, Con-
157 Sarah Garland, Should Value-Added Teacher Ratings Be Adjusted for Poverty?, HECHINGER
REP. (Nov. 22, 2011), http://hechingerreport.org/content/should-value-added-teacherratings-
be-adjusted-for-poverty_6899/ (on file with the Harvard Law School Library) (describing
some of the studies and the potential problems they have found with value-added teacher
ratings).
158 Francis L. Huang & Tonya R. Moon, Is Experience the Best Teacher? A Multilevel
Analysis of Teacher Qualifications and Academic Achievement in Low Performing Schools, 21
EDUC. ASSESSMENT EVALUATION ACCOUNTABILITY 209, 231 (2009) (concluding that teachers
with five or more years of experience at a particular grade level show significantly higher
student achievement); John Papay & Matthew Kraft, Do Teachers Continue to Improve With
Experience? Evidence of Long-Term Career Growth in the Teacher Labor Market (Harv. U.
Graduate Sch. of Educ., Feb. 2011).
159 Jennings & Rentner, supra note 15; Press Release, Am. Fed’n of Teachers, AFT Resolution
Recommends Fixes to Improve Testing Integrity, Protocols (Oct. 24, 2011), http://www.
aft.org/newspubs/press/2011/102411.cfm (on file with the Harvard Law School Library);
Badertscher & Sarrio, supra note 13; Gillum & Bello, supra note 13.
160 JANE G. COGGSHALL ET AL., AM. FED’N OF TEACHERS & AM. INST. FOR RESEARCH,
WORKPLACES THAT SUPPORT HIGH-PERFORMING TEACHING AND LEARNING: INSIGHTS FROM
GENERATION Y TEACHERS 2 (2011).
161 Id. at 31.
36 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
necticut; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Cincinnati, Ohio; Hillsborough County,
Florida; St. Paul, Minnesota, and elsewhere. To further that work, the AFT
recently received a U.S. Department of Education Investing in Innovation
(I3) Grant to expand the evaluation work under way in a dozen school districts
in New York and Rhode Island. That work was originally supported
by the AFT Innovation Fund.
We believe that the AFT/AASA framework, when collaboratively developed
with district teachers, enables school districts to meet the needs of
Generation Y teachers, as well as their more experienced colleagues. The
framework proposes a three-step process: evaluation, support, and an expedited
dismissal process, where, if necessary, an arbitrator is asked only to
judge the fidelity of the evaluation process.
Developing a comprehensive teacher evaluation system begins with establishing
performance standards. To be effective, the standards need to get
at the key question: What skills and performance should be expected from a
teacher? Teachers need to know the standards they are expected to meet and
the measures being used to assess them (indeed, learning about those standards
and how they play out in practice is a very effective professional development
activity). School districts and unions must work together to
develop these standards, as well as the guidelines, policies, and timelines for
their implementation.
Evaluation based on those standards should take into account multiple
measures: classroom observations, portfolio review, appraisal of lesson
plans, and other tools to measure student learning—written work, performances,
presentations, and projects. And yes, student test scores based on
valid and reliable assessments that truly measure each student’s growth in
each teacher’s classroom should be included in the mix—but not in a disproportionate
way.
If a teacher is deemed to be unsatisfactory, a support process with adequate
feedback must begin. Teachers deserve to know from the start where
they are falling short and what they need to focus on to improve. “It just
wasn’t a good class” isn’t clear enough.
An improvement plan should be developed to include clearly articulated
measures of success, timelines, support needed, and periodic reviews.
The AFT and the AASA believe the best system is one that includes principals
and peers so everybody is on the same page to assemble an improvement
plan that directly addresses the issues the evaluator identified. Roles
for the teacher, peers, and administrators should be spelled out, and all parties
should sign off on them. Both the district and the union should ensure
that the teacher has the resources the plan requires.
At the conclusion of the agreed-upon time period for the teacher to
show improvement, the administrator (perhaps with the advice of a peer
evaluator where such positions exist) judges whether the teacher is now performing
up to the standard. The school district decides whether to retain or
remove the teacher, a decision that can be reviewed by a neutral third party.
If there is a peer process and the judgments are the same, that is conclusive.
2012] Teachers in School Improvement 37
If not, an arbitrator could play a role in a hearing whose purpose is to review
the entire evaluation process to ensure fairness and objectivity. Because the
hearing would not be a re-litigation of what constitutes good teaching, no
adjudication for teacher performance should take longer than 100 days.162
In June 2011, the AFT and the AASA, in an unprecedented partnership
between groups traditionally seen as adversaries, agreed to conduct a collaborative
project to implement this framework in school districts across the
country, starting in Michigan, Ohio, and Colorado.
VI. THE PRICE OF STIFLING TEACHERS’ VOICES
The National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) explored
the lessons of high-performing countries and their implications for the antiteacher-
union efforts in this country. It cited recent actions in some states to
restrict collective bargaining by teachers, or even eviscerate unions, despite
evidence that countries with the top student performance have some the
strongest teachers’ unions is the world.163
After tracing the history of the labor movement and the teachers’ union
movement in northern European countries and Canadian provinces with very
successful school systems, the NCEE concludes that there is a fundamental
difference between attitudes about labor-management relations there and in
the U.S.164 In Europe, labor and management see themselves as co-equal
“social partners” with government, while in the U.S., labor, management,
elected leaders, and government officials have a tradition of an “uneasy
truce.”165 The report warns that this lack of trust among the stakeholders in
the U.S. may win some battles for the “dictate and dismiss” reformers, but
at the cost of losing the war, that is, achieving the aim of improved teaching
and learning in American schools, particularly those that serve poor children
and students of color.166
Current efforts to curtail the power of unions may have some partial
successes,
[b]ut that victory is likely to come at the price of deeply alienating
many teachers from the larger cause of reform. . . . Indeed, it is
clear to teachers that, if they lose their unions in this hour of state
and municipal fiscal crises, they will have no protection at all in
the face of enormous pressure on state and local officials to make
massive cuts in teachers [sic] jobs, compensation and benefits.
162 The American Federation of Teachers’ Quality Education Agenda, AM. FED’N OF
TEACHERS, http://www.aft.org/newspubs/press/qualityagenda.cfm (last visited Nov. 27, 2011)
(on file with the Harvard Law School Library) (describing the AFT’s proposal for a new
framework of teacher evaluation).
163 NAT’L CTR. ON EDUC. & THE ECON., supra note 79, at 1.
164 Id. at 1–2.
165 Id. at 2.
166 See id. at 9.
38 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 6
Teachers know that now is when they need their unions more
than ever. A determined, widespread effort to weaken or destroy
the only institution most teachers are counting on to protect them
economically will confirm that message and force them into retirement
or into the bunker. . . .
This is precisely what happened . . . in Ontario, [until a new
premier decided] to take whatever steps are necessary to convince
the teachers that they have the trust of government and to enlist
their unions in the search for solutions to the challenge of improving
student performance. . . . It was the mutual trust that grew out
of this relationship that persuaded the teachers and unions to . . .
make concessions that they would never have willingly made
when under savage attack.
. . . [G]etting to a place where [divisive] issues can be productively
addressed requires first a relationship of trust between
government and labor. Building that trust ought to be the first order
of business.167
Policymakers would do well to consider the advice offered by a broad
range of observers: that real reform is impossible without teachers’ unions,
and that reflexive antagonism to teachers’ unions is misguided in light of
union actions to find common ground and to share responsibility for student
success.168
The country is at an important crossroads in public education. Will
policymakers use it for one more flawed attempt—this time in the guise of
budgetary relief and education reform—to limit even further teachers’ voice
in their work? Or will those policymakers finally listen to what teachers say
they need to meet the ever-changing demands of educating our children for
the future they face?
If the policymakers listen to the teachers, they would tell them, as Generation
Y teachers did, to focus on teacher quality in a meaningful and fair
way; create environments that enable us to work collaboratively with our
peers, supervisors, and parents; and help us help all our kids equitably, based
on what the children need, not who they are.
That is the route AFT has opted to take; it is the way that enables us to
sustain and scale up effective practices, and it is the course we hope that all
those who care about improving our schools and the outcomes for children
will take as well.
167 Id. at 9–11.
168 See Walt Gardner, Walking in Teachers’ Shoes, EDUC. WEEK (Nov. 16, 2011, 7:25
AM), http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2011/11/walking_in_
teachers_shoes.html; Joe Nocera, Op-Ed., Teaching With the Enemy, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 8,
2011, at A27.
| |||