2004 could turn out to be the year of the teacher, the year that the bureaucratic, ideological, and regulatory strangleholds under which the teaching profession labors might just be broken. Last year ended with the Education Trust's stern rebuke of federal and state officials for playing fast and loose with NCLB's highly-qualified teacher requirement. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=128#1608.) The new year opened with an unexpectedly bold, almost radical, "call to reform" from Lou Gerstner's Teaching Commission; a generally bullish evaluation of Denver's pilot "pay for performance" effort; and a surprising speech by New York City teachers' union head Randi Weingarten that urged decades-overdue streamlining of the "teacher discipline process." What next?
We will admit that, when former IBM CEO Louis V. Gerstner formed his 19-member blue-ribbon teaching commission, it was so exquisitely "balanced" that we assumed it would be able to recommend little more than an extrapolation of present policies and practices into a better-financed future. We're delighted to have been proven wrong. The Commission's recommendations are far-reaching and generally commendable. Yes, it calls for plenty more money, but also for linking pay to effectiveness (based on value-added measures of student achievement), to subject specialty, and to working conditions. It urges new forms of accountability for teacher-education programs, making new teachers pass demanding tests of content knowledge, and removing needless certification obstacles. And it would empower school principals as "CEOs" with control over personnel decisions. Bravo. It's 60 pages long and you can find it at http://www.theteachingcommission.org/publications/FINAL_Report.pdf.
Denver's pay-for-performance pilot program wasn't very bold, large, or long-lasting, but it seems to have made a positive difference in many, though not all, of the participating schools. The 145-page study explaining this is full of information (much of it rather technical) but it also suggests that a real city CAN implement the kind of performance-linked compensation plan that the Gerstner team is urging, and can even do so with the union's cooperation. The report is available at http://www.dpsk12.org/pdf/PayForPerformance.pdf.
As for Randi Weingarten's January 14 speech to the Association for a Better New York, it seeks to answer the question, "How to get a highly qualified teacher into every New York City classroom--and keep them there?" Much of her answer is standard stuff: better base pay, a cursory nod toward performance-linked compensation, a professional career ladder, greater respect for teacher expertise, etc. But then she turned to the problem of teacher incompetence and - after blaming management for not solving it - offered a promising proposal of her own. Its gist is that management should move aside and give the union 90 days (no more) to set a faltering teacher either on the course to improvement or the road to exiting. In the latter case, she says, the union will then back principal and chancellor if they opt to "remove the person for incompetence." Though Ms. Weingarten made several more discipline-related recommendations, the 90-day time limit captured the headlines. After all, New York City claims that under present procedures it cannot remove an incompetent teacher in less than two years. Fascinating. You can find her text at http://www.abny.org/docs/UFT_speech.pdf.
Three promising moves, at least on paper. And - let us, who often rap the unions, not fail to comment - all involved teacher unions. Two are obvious. In the Gerstner case, note that one of his panel members is AFT president Sandra Feldman. Good for them. Now they must walk the walk.
"Commission wants teacher pay tied to test scores," by Ben Feller, Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 15, 2004
"Merit pay helps students, too," Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 20, 2004
