institute for a competitive workforce in focus: a look ... · the institute for a competitive...

Institute for a Competitive Workforce

In Focus:A Look Into Teacher Effectiveness

The Institute for a Competitive Workforce (ICW) is the non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)3 affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. ICW promotes the rigorous educational standards and effective job training systems needed to preserve the strength of America’s greatest economic resource, its workforce.

Through its events, publications, and policy initiatives—and drawing upon the Chamber’s extensive network of 3 million members—ICW connects the best minds in American business with the most innovative thinkers in American education, helping them work together to ensure the nation’s continued prosperity.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.

© Institute for a Competitive Workforce, January 2011

In Focus: A Look Into Teacher Effectiveness | 1

As the 112th Congress gets under way, so, too, does another opportunity to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, otherwise known as No Child Left Behind). During this time, the reauthorization will get considerable attention as the president is likely to make education reform among his top issues.

In an effort to inform the business community on the issues facing reauthorization and education reform in general, ICW has developed a series of four In Focus Briefs covering the following topics: Teacher Effectiveness, High Student Standards and Worthwhile Assessments, the Use of Data to Drive Educational Decisions, and Turning Around Failing Schools. These briefs will take a look at what all stakeholders should know and understand as a new round of education reform debate begins.

Teacher Effectiveness

In this first In Focus Brief, we tackle teacher effectiveness. While there is broad consensus that high-quality teachers are key in raising student achievement, there is significant disagreement about how to measure and reward quality, as well as how to ensure that every classroom has a high-quality teacher. But all of those conversations should be supported by a solid understanding of what is happening right now.

Specifically, this brief focuses on the following key areas that are currently driving the teacher quality conversation at the national, state, and local levels:

• The Role and Impact of Collective Bargaining

• Teacher Evaluations: The Role of State Laws and Collective Bargaining

• Teacher Compensation: Seniority Rules

• Teacher Tenure: Low Bar for Granting, High Bar for Taking Away

In Focus: A Look Into Teacher Effectiveness

2 | Institute for a Competitive Workforce

Collective bargaining refers to the regular, district-level negotiations of teacher representatives (labor) and district representatives (management) regarding salary, working conditions, and terms of employment. The result is a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), commonly called a union contract that covers all teachers, whether or not they are union members.

Collective bargaining has a relatively short history in U.S. education; it has been common practice for only about 40 years. The National Labor Relations Act broadly governs collective bargaining. Approximately 33 states legislatively define collective bargaining—whether it is mandatory, optional, or prohibited; who can be covered by a CBA; which issues are negotiable; and actions to take if an agreement cannot be reached. Most states limit the scope of bargaining to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment such as health benefits, vacation time, and pension plans. Sometimes states are divided into two groups—union and “right to work.” However, a “right to work” state simply means that CBAs are prevented from requiring workers to support and share the costs of union representation.

There is not a great deal of difference between collective bargaining states and noncollective bargaining states in terms of teacher wages, conditions of employment, etc. Most researchers agree that states and districts without collective bargaining have preemptively adopted legislation, policies, and practices bargained elsewhere.

Although CBAs have received a great deal of blame from education reformers as impediments to educational change, the reality is not that straightforward. The National Center for Teaching Quality (NCTQ), after developing TR3, a large database of union contracts, found that unions are a key factor in the policies that are applied to teachers. However, they argue that those interested in reform ought to look first at state laws, which set the stage for collective bargaining agreements and, in many cases, codify the policies—such as teacher tenure and evaluation—that frustrate reformers.

Teacher Evaluations: The Role of State Laws and Collective Bargaining

Teachers in U.S. classrooms are regularly evaluated, both when the teacher is on probation and when the teacher has been granted tenure. The terms of these evaluations, which are dictated by collective bargaining agreements, are based on process; they are not linked to teacher compensation and are almost never tied to student achievement. Based on 2009 research by The New Teacher Project (TNTP), Chart 1 provides the specific requirements for 12 school districts.

Standard practice dictates that teachers should be evaluated by the school principal. In larger schools, this duty may be delegated to an assistant principal or a department head. New teachers are evaluated at least annually, while in most states, established teachers are evaluated on a one- to five-year cycle. These evaluations are typically based on brief observations of the teacher in his or her classroom, during which time the principal uses a checklist to verify certain teacher actions and classroom characteristics.

The Role and Impact of Collective Bargaining


Chart 1: District Teacher Evaluation Requirements—Tenured Teachers

District Formal Evaluation Frequency

Number of Observations

Length of Observations

No. of Ratings Possible (Scale)

Peer Review Process

Akron Public Schools

Once every 3 years No more than 4 More than 15 minutes

5 No

Cincinnati Public Schools

Once every 5 years 1 sufficient in length; 2 at certain levels on the salary scale

Sufficient in length to justify rating

4 Yes

Chicago Public Schools

Once every 2 years, or annually for teachers rated satisfactory or unsatisfactory

At least 2 Data not available

4 No

Denver Public Schools

Once every 3 years At least 1 At least 20 minutes

2 No

District U-46 (Elgin)

Once every 2 years At least 1, no more than 3

At least 30 minutes

3 No

El Dorado Public Schools

One per year No requirement Data not available

NA No

Jonesboro Public Schools

At least 1 per year At least 1 formal and 1 informal

Formal is at least 30 minutes

2 No

Little Rock School District

Full evaluation every 3 years, with teachers evaluated on various domains each year

Different domains evaluated every year so that each teacher is comprehensively evaluated every 3 years

Data not available

Data not available

No

Pueblo City Schools

Once every 3 years One per year Data not available

2 No

Rockford Public Schools

Once every 2 years 3 One must be at least 30 minutes

3 No

Springdale Public Schools

Once every year Varies No minimum Varies No

Toledo Public Schools

Every 4 years, 4-year contract teachers only; continuing contract teachers not evaluated unless there are performance concerns

At least 1 At least 30 minutes

2 Yes

Excerpted from Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern & Keeling (2009). The Widget Effect. The New Teacher Project. Available online at http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf.


Standard practice also dictates that visits are scheduled in advance and are supposed to be accompanied by a pre- and post-conference during which the teacher’s performance is discussed. Although this is not the only time a principal observes a teacher in the classroom, other visits—whether by the principal, other administrators, or coaches—cannot be used in evaluating a teacher. This requirement is included in the collective bargaining agreement.

Here are some items included on those checklists:1

Planning and Preparation

• Teacher has materials, supplies, and equipment ready at the start of the lesson or instructional activity.

• Teacher is prepared to present the lesson and gets students on task quickly at the beginning of each lesson or instructional activity.

• Teacher has instructional plans that are compatible with districtwide curricular goals and State Learning Standards.

• Teacher has instructional plans that match objectives, learning strategies, assessments, and students’ needs at the appropriate level of difficulty.

• Teacher provides adequate plans and procedures for substitute teachers.

The Classroom Environment

• Teacher establishes rules and procedures that govern student verbal participation during different types of activities (e.g., whole class instruction, small group instruction).

• Teacher frequently monitors the behavior of all students during whole class, small group, and seat-work activities and during transitions between instructional activities.

• Teacher interacts positively, effectively, and appropriately with students.

• Teacher encourages students to set goals.

• Teacher maintains stimulating learning environment by displaying correlated bulletin boards and/or student work.

Instruction

• Teacher maintains a high level of student time on-task.

• Teacher asks appropriate levels of questions, which students handle with a high rate of success.

• Teacher conducts lessons or instructional activities at a brisk pace and avoids unnecessary slowdowns, but slows presentations when necessary for student understanding.

• Teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies to meet the needs of a variety of learners.

• Teacher begins lessons or instructional activities with a review of previous material or with an anticipatory set of prepared materials.

• Teacher routinely uses verbal, written, and other work products to check student progress.

• Teacher provides corrective and enrichment activities.

• Teacher uses assessment data to monitor student progress and develop appropriate remediation activities, including formative and summative techniques.

1 This checklist is excerpted from Grundy County, IA. Complete form available online at http://gcsec.mornet.org/Files/ Employee%20Manual%20CD%20PDF/Teacher%20Evaluation%20Form.pdf


Professional Responsibilities

• Teacher maintains accurate records to document student performance.

• Teacher interacts effectively and appropriately with students.

• Teacher is involved in professional growth activities.

• Teacher adheres to established laws, policies, rules, and regulations regarding attendance.

• Teacher is punctual in duties, committee assignments, supervisory assignments, teacher assignments, and parent-teacher conferences.

• Teacher demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness by adjusting to district, cooperative, or student changes.

The classroom observations and accompanying checklist result in a numeric score, generally 1 to 4, or 1 to 5. A higher score is better, while a lower score may trigger a requirement for the teacher to develop an improvement plan. Once each principal completes the teacher evaluations, the forms are sent to the district office, together with any recommendations for teacher improvement. The superintendent must approve the evaluations as well as the recommendations. Note: Neither input from other teachers (peer review) nor student achievement is typically included in these evaluations. Once the superintendent signs off on the evaluations, they are complete for the year or cycle.

For new teachers who are on probation, the evaluation should carry significant weight in the last probationary year. At the end of that year, the principal must recommend whether the teacher should be offered a permanent position, variously referred to as “tenure” or “continuing contract.”

“On the Ground”

That’s the system—on paper. In reality, each district has its own informal, but widely understood, norms of dealing with evaluations. In some schools, teachers are asked to complete their own evaluations and then discuss them with the principal. In many districts, every teacher is granted a “perfect” score. The New Teacher Project notes that between 94% and 99% of teachers (depending on the type of evaluation scale used) are rated either “good” or “great.”

To shed additional light on the evaluation process, the Department of Education included new detailed reporting requirements as part of the Phase II State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) applications under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which passed in 2009. These reporting requirements included information about “the systems used to evaluate teachers and principals and the use of those results from those systems in decisions regarding teacher development, compensation, promotion, retention and removal.” Each state had to either provide the website where this information is publicly available or commit to a timeline no later than September 30, 2011, to publish the following information:

• A description of the evaluation system(s),

• Whether the system(s) include student achievement or student growth data as an evaluation criterion,

• Number and percentage of teachers rated at each performance level,

• Whether the number and percentage of teachers at each performance level are reported for each school in each district.

As highlighted in Chart 2, very few states collect this information. It can be argued that as a result, few states actively consider whether the systems used to evaluate teachers lead to any improvements in teaching. Complete state plans are available at www2.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/phase-ii-resources.html.


Chart 2: State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Information

State Highlights Web Address for Teacher Information (Including Number and Percentage of Highly Qualified Teachers)

Provide Description

Teacher Ratings

Principal Ratings

Alabama Stated on website: “Alabama does not link student achievement data to teacher or leader evaluation.”

www.educatealabama.net/about.htm

www.alabamapepe.com

Y, under revision

N N

Alaska The state does not currently collect data.

www.eed.state.ak.us/reportcard N N N

Arizona The state does not currently collect data.

www.ade.az.gov/asd/hqp/AZ_CSPR_Part_I_FY2009.pdf (CSPR)

N N N

Arkansas Friendly report card format but has limited information available.

www.arkansased.org/testing/performance/read.html

http://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/State/State.php (CSPR)

N N N

California State has collected data and published in advance of federally required timelines.

www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/schlstfrpt.asp

Y Y Y

Colorado The state does not currently collect data.

www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/index.asp

N N N

Connecticut Website includes only teacher distribution data.

www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2703&Q=322314

N N N

Delaware Website provides information on ratings for teachers, specialists, and administrators. However, data on the evaluation system appear to be limited to the state requirements for such systems.

www.doe.k12.de.us/csa/dpasii/default.shtml

www.doe.k12.de.us/csa/dpasii/ti/dpasII_TeachDPASIIGuide.pdf

See pages 1 and 37–40.

See the public link for the statewide Teacher Appraisal System: http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/100/106.shtml#TopOfPage

New regulations have been adopted for the 2011–2012 school year that further defines Student Improvement (106A Teacher Appraisal Process Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II) Revised)

http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/100/106A.shtml#TopOfPage

Y N N


District of Columbia

Website provides data on highly qualified teachers and plans for additionally required data.

www.osse.dc.gov/seo/cwp/view,a,1222,Q,564028,PM,1,seoNav,%7C31195%7C.asp

N N N

Florida Teacher data are comprehensive; no principal information.

www.fldoe.org/ARRA/arra-Indicator.asp

Y Y N

Georgia State information on teacher evaluation systems is limited to state requirements.

www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp

Y N N

Hawaii Teacher data are embedded in “employment reports.”

http://doe.k12.hi.us/index.php (under heading “Reports”)

N Y, in application only

Y, in application only

Idaho The state does not currently collect data.

www.sde.idaho.gov/site/teacher_certification/HQT/docs/Dec.%202009%20CSPR%20submission%201.5-1.5.3.doc (This is a downloadable copy of the CSPR.)

N N N

Illinois The state does not currently collect data.

www.isbe.net/SFSF N N N

Indiana The state does not currently collect data.

www.doe.in.gov/hqt N N N

Iowa State collects data on the use of student achievement in teacher evaluation and presumably could report it publicly prior to the federal deadline.

www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php Y, but not reported publicly

N N

Kansas The state has a single web page with links (or placeholders) for all data.

www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=3918#a

Y Data under review

Data under review

Kentucky Plans for collecting and reporting each data element are provided in easy-to-read tables.

www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Finance+and+Funding/American+Recovery+and+Reinvestment+Act/State+Fiscal+Stabilization+Fund/Area+A+-+Achieving+Equity+in+Teacher+Distribution.htm

N N N


Provide Description

Teacher Ratings

Principal Ratings


Louisiana State collects data on the number and percentage of teachers at each performance level and presumably could report it publicly prior to the federal deadline.

www.teachlouisiana.net/Teachers.asp?PageID=5602 (CSPR and teacher equity plan).

N Y, but not reported publicly

N

Maine State collects data on teacher and principal evaluation systems, including how they are used and whether they rely on student achievement data. State collects data on the number and percentage of teachers and principals at each performance level. State presumably could report these data publicly prior to the federal deadline.

www.medms.maine.gov/medms%5Fpublic/ReportPortal/Portal.aspx?CurrentLocation=%2fPublic+Reports%2fNo+Child+Left+Behind (teacher quality reports)

Y, but not reported publicly



Maryland Website provides searchable data by school district.

http://marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/programs/arra/sfsf2

Y Y Y

Massachusetts The state does not currently collect data.

http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/staterc/enrollment.aspx?fyCode=2008

N N N

Michigan The state does not currently collect data.

www.michigan.gov/documents/cepi/2008_Fall_equitable_dist_312643_7.pdf (teacher distribution data)

N N N

Minnesota The state does not currently collect data.

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/About_MDE/Fed_Stimulus_Update/index.html (no teacher data located)

N N N

Mississippi The state does not currently collect data. State plan indicates that the state is developing a statewide data collection system.

http://orshome.mde.k12.ms.us/Account/2010Report/HQTch10.pdf

N N N

Missouri The state does not currently collect data.

http://dese.mo.gov/schooldata/school_data.html

N N N

Montana The state does not currently collect data.

www.opi.mt.gov/Reports&Data/index.html?gpm=1_9

http://opi.mt.gov/Accred/HQT.html

N N N

Nebraska The state does not currently collect data.

www.education.ne.gov/ARRA (no teacher data located)

N N N


Provide Description

Teacher Ratings

Principal Ratings


Nevada The state does not currently collect data.

www.doe.nv.gov/Assessment_NV_ReportCard.htm

www.doe.nv.gov/Accountability_NCLB.htm

N N N

New Hampshire Website provides data in charts by district.

www.education.nh.gov/nclb/index.htm

www.education.nh.gov/data/staffing.htm

Y Y Y

New Jersey The state does not currently collect data.

www.state.nj.us/education/grants/nclb/app/per10/cspr2.pdf (CSPR data)

N N N

New Mexico Rather than actual data, the state appears to be reporting its requirements for districts.

http://ped.state.nm.us/edFundII/dl10/Descriptor%20_a__1_%20Teacher%20Evaluation%20Tied%20to%20PD%20Compensation%20Promotion%20Retention%20Removal.pdf

http://teachnm.org/programs/3-tiered-licensure-system.html

http://ped.state.nm.us/edFundII/dl10/Indicator%20(a)(3).pdf

http://teachnm.org/administrators/principal-and-assistant-principal-evaluation-process.html

http://ped.state.nm.us/edFundII/dl10/Indicator%20_a__6_.pdf

Y N N

New York The state does not currently collect data.

www.emsc.nysed.gov/ppd/documents/HQTNatl201008-09data.xls (this is a downloadable Excel file of HQT status)

www.emsc.nysed.gov/ppd/HQT-Equitable.html (teacher equitable distribution plan)

N N N

North Carolina Although the state indicates that it currently collects data on teacher evaluation systems, it is referring to a new teacher evaluation system being implemented in SY2010–2011.

www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/arra/sfsf/reporting/equity

N N N

North Dakota The state does not currently collect data.

www.dpi.state.nd.us/dpi/reports/Profile/0809/ProfileDistrict/HQ.pdf

N N N

Ohio The state does not currently collect data.

http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=400&ContentID=2635 (CSPR data)

N N N


Provide Description

Teacher Ratings

Principal Ratings


Oklahoma Although the state indicates it collects some data, it is referring to state requirements for teacher and principal evaluations.

www.sde.state.ok.us/NCLB/TitleIIPartA.html (CSPR)

N N N

Oregon State does not make the most basic information—the number and percentage of teachers who are highly qualified—available publicly.

www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=2215 (teacher equitable distribution plan)

N N N

Pennsylvania The state does not currently collect data.

www.education.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/highly_qualified_teacher_requirements/8631 (HQT data and teacher equitable distribution plan)

N N N

Rhode Island The state does not currently collect data.

www.ride.ri.gov/EducatorQuality/DOCS/SFSF/teacher_quality_2009.pdf

N N N

South Carolina State description of evaluation system is limited to state requirements. State collects district-specific teacher evaluation outcomes but does not report this publicly.

www.scteachers.org/Adept/evalpdf/ADEPTresults2009.pdf

Y Y N

South Dakota The state does not currently collect data.

http://doe.sd.gov/oess/documents/CSRP_PartII_0809.pdf (CSPR)

N N N

Tennessee State description of evaluation system is limited to state requirements.

http://state.tn.us/education/frameval/index.shtml

www.tapsystem.org/policyresearch/policyresearch.taf?page=resources&pcat=2

Under new legislation passed by the General Assembly and signed by the governor on January 16, 2010, all LEAs must use a new model to be developed by an appointed advisory committee, which will include student achievement outcomes or student growth data as an evaluation criterion.

www.tennessee.gov/sos/acts/106/pub/pc0002EOS.pdf

Y N N


Provide Description

Teacher Ratings

Principal Ratings


Texas The state does not currently collect data.

www.tea.state.tx.Us/index4.aspx?id=4662&menuid=98

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/nclb/PDF/Clarified-Attachment6HQT.pdf (teacher equitable distribution plan)

N N N

Utah The state does not currently collect data.

http://u-pass.schools.utah.gov/u-passweb/StateData.jsp?report=HQ

www.schools.utah.gov/arra/reporting.aspx

N N N

Vermont The state does not currently collect data.

http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/licensing/hqt.html#data

N N N

Virginia The state does not currently collect data.

www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/reports/consolid_state_perf_rpts/121809.pdf (CSPR HQT)

www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/title2/part_a/index.shtml

N N N

Washington The state does not currently collect data.

www.k12.wa.us/TitleIIA/HighlyQualifiedTeachers.aspx (HQT and teacher equitable distribution plan)

N N N

West Virginia State description of evaluation system is limited to state requirements.

http://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/data/index.php

http://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/data/evaltaskforce.php

Y N N

Wisconsin The state does not currently collect data.

www.dpi.wi.gov/esea/pdf/cspr0809i.pdf (CSPR HQT)

www.dpi.wi.gov/esea/pdf/wi_hqt_plan_2009_update.pdf

N N N

Wyoming State collects information on evaluation systems but does not report this publicly. State could report these data publicly prior to the federal deadline.

www.k12.wy.us/A/sfsf.asp

www.k12.wy.us/FP/HQT/hqt_plan.pdf


N N

Note: In Chart 2, states in “red” denote those providing no publicly available data related to a description of their teacher evaluation systems, teacher ratings, and principal ratings. States in “yellow” denote those providing at least one or two of these reporting elements, and states in “green” report on all three elements.


Provide Description

Teacher Ratings

Principal Ratings


Some states clearly stand out for their existing data collection and reporting. New Hampshire and Maryland are the only two states that currently collect and publish teacher and principal evaluation data. California, which did not have any of the teacher data when it submitted its SFSF Phase II application, managed to collect the data together with required quarterly Recovery Act reporting. These data are now available to the public well in advance of the federal deadline. This effort stands in contrast to many other states, which report that they will simply meet the federal deadline. It is hard to determine why some states—such as Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Wyoming, and South Carolina—that have already collected data, nonetheless, have no plans to make it public any sooner than the federal deadline of September 2011.

Many states reported that the only place these data are publicly available is in their Consolidated State Performance Reports—dense statistical reports required by the U.S. Department of Education. In some cases, states have reluctantly complied with this required reporting, and have complained publicly about the extensive burden of compliance. At the same time, some states have not made the data—which they have already collected for federal purposes—available in any meaningful form for the general public. Even the length of the web addresses in Chart 2 points to the difficulty members of the public may have in locating these data on many sites. It stands to reason that without this requirement, states would make even less data publicly available.

Student Achievement

Until recently, virtually no state or school district used student achievement as a measure for evaluating teacher performance. However, due in part to the Race to the Top competition, several states have passed laws making student achievement a significant factor in teacher evaluations—in some states, at least 50%. While these provisions have been adopted, for the most part they have yet to be implemented. It remains to be seen if these changes will actually take hold. If so, they could mark the beginning of a significant shift in the process by which teachers in this nation are evaluated.


Teacher Compensation: Seniority Rules

In the United States, the vast majority of public school teachers are compensated on a single salary scale. Although these scales are currently included in and reinforced by collective bargaining, such systems predate union contracts by several decades. The single salary scale, which began in 1921 in Denver and Des Moines, was implemented to counteract discrimination, well before civil rights laws were passed nationally. White teachers were commonly paid much more than African-American teachers, while the largely female elementary school teachers were paid much less than the largely male secondary school teachers. The single salary scale was developed to protect teachers from administrative unfairness and discrimination both at the school and district levels.

The single salary scale established “years of experience”—or seniority—as a neutral criterion on which to base compensation. After collective bargaining was established in the 1960s, unions preserved this system despite advances in civil rights laws that contain their own protections against discrimination.

Besides preserving the salary scale, unions have influenced teacher pay in other ways. Depending on the study, the “premium” unions bring to teacher salaries ranges from 5% to 20%; in other words, teachers earn between 5% and 20% more because of the influence of unions. Unions also have, according to some researchers, reduced the variation in teacher starting salaries, thereby compressing the pay scale. As unions bargain for raises, the largest portion of those raises accrues to the most senior teachers—a 4% across-the-board raise is much more valuable to the teacher earning $50,000 than to the teacher earning $30,000.

Unions also have negotiated for supplemental pay for teachers who take on more work (such as coaching sports or serving as a department head), earn additional qualifications (such as the National Board Certification, which is developed in conjunction with the NEA), or receive master’s degrees. Education researchers Susan Moore Johnson and Morgaen L. Donaldson say that these supplements are still secondary to seniority. “The single salary scale was expanded with columns that rewarded teachers who earned academic degrees beyond the bachelor’s. However, within each column on the pay scale (for example, bachelor’s, bachelor’s plus 30 hours, or master’s), a teacher’s upward movement still depended on experience, with every year bringing an automatic raise (or step increase) until the teacher reached the top of the scale.”2

The value of additional qualifications has been studied, and results are mixed. Some researchers have found a small, positive effect of National Board Certification on student achievement. However, research definitively shows that additional degrees, such as a master’s, have no impact on student achievement.345

Recent education policy debates have called into question the validity of seniority as the basis for compensation precisely because it treats all teachers equally and does not differentiate on the basis of teacher quality. Given the history of the single salary scale with its emphasis on equity, it is somewhat easier to understand why it has not been linked to teacher evaluations (which can be influenced by administrator bias) or to student achievement data (a relatively recent phenomenon).

2 Susan Moore Johnson and Morgaen L. Donaldson (2006). The Effects of Collective Bargaining on Teacher Quality. Collective Bargaining in Education: Negotiating Change in Today’s Schools. Harvard Education Press.

3 Kate Walsh and Christopher O. Tracy. Increasing the Odds: How Good Policies Can Yield Better Teachers. National Council on Teacher Quality. Available online at www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_io.pdf

4 Marc Holley (2008). Master’s Degrees. Mackinac Center on Public Policy. Available online at www.mackinac.org/9592

5 Dan Goldhaber and Emily Anthony (2005). Can Teacher Quality be Effectively Assessed? National Board Certification as a Signal of Effective Teaching. The Urban Institute. Available online at www.urban.org/publications/411271.html


Teacher Tenure: Low Bar for Granting, High Bar for Taking Away

Tenure for a teacher is a guarantee of a lifetime job in the school district, barring significant economic downturns—which could necessitate layoffs—or egregious misconduct. Yet granting tenure is not, for the most part, viewed as a significant decision by school districts. As the National Council on Teacher Quality writes, “Neither teachers’ unions nor state legislatures look upon tenure as an honor conferred upon a teacher who is found by some measure to be effective. In their view, tenure at the PK-12 level is a right that should be conferred to all employed teachers with a few years of satisfactory teaching experience.”6

Once individuals graduate from a four-year college with a teaching degree and pass a state licensure test, they are granted a provisional teaching certificate, which enables them to secure a teaching position in a school district. State law typically sets the conditions for converting the provisional teaching certificate into a regular teaching certificate, as well as the requirements for renewing or maintaining that certificate over time. The responsibility then shifts to the school district to determine whether the provisional teacher becomes permanent, to determine if state requirements have been met, and to provide any mentoring, induction, or oversight for the provisional teacher.

State law sets the time frame for granting tenure. Most commonly, a teacher is considered probationary for three years, although eight states (Connecticut, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Missouri) require teachers to practice for four or five years before gaining tenure. Ohio now requires seven. In three states (Hawaii, Mississippi, and North Dakota), teachers gain tenure after only one year.

Note: An excellent resource for learning more about state teacher tenure laws is an updated report from the Education Commission of the States’ (ECS), State Teacher Tenure/Continuing Contract Laws available at www.ecs.org.

At the end of the designated period, the district decides whether to award tenure to the teacher—in other words, to offer the teacher a continuing contract, which comes with significant protections. State law also sets the requirements for granting tenure—satisfactory evaluations (see Teacher Evaluations: The Role of State Laws and Collective Bargaining on page 2). In 2010, New York City denied tenure to a historically high 3.7% of provisional teachers. Denver denied tenure to only 3%. According to a series of studies by The New Teacher Project, many teachers don’t believe that “the probationary period provides new teachers adequate support to develop the skills and knowledge they need to be successful in the classroom,”7 with teacher agreement to that statement ranging from 20% in Denver to 66% in Toledo.

6 Emily Cohen, Kate Walsh, and RiShawn Biddle (2008). Invisible Ink in Collective Bargaining: Why Key Issues are Not Addressed. The National Council on Teacher Quality. Available online at www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_invisible_ ink_20080801115950.pdf.

7 District and State Studies (June 2007-March 2010). The New Teacher Project. Available online at http://tntp.org/publications/ district-and-state-studies


Why Is Tenure So Powerful?

Tenure originated to redress the fact that teachers prior to the 1960s could be, and frequently were, fired for virtually any cause, for example, becoming pregnant. Tenure officially provides a teacher with the right to due process before being fired. However, the protection of due process extends much farther. In reality, the percentage of teachers who are terminated is very low, and media reports have revealed arrangements, such as New York City’s “rubber rooms,” that keep teachers on the district payroll, sometimes for years as appeals wind through the system.

It’s not entirely clear why tenure is viewed as virtually sacrosanct, but there are certainly indicators. Any action against a teacher for poor performance starts with a negative evaluation. Both teachers and principals believe that there are incompetent teachers in their buildings. But principals are generally reluctant to give poor ratings to teachers in their buildings. Research is very scarce on their reasons, but it could be due to personal loyalty, concern that a poorly performing teacher would reflect poorly on their leadership, reluctance to cause trouble for the district, lack of commitment to the large amount of paperwork and time burdens necessary to complete the process, or concerns that the principal would not be supported by the district office and/or superintendent. The New Teacher Project asked principals in select school districts about this issue and found that many principals think that the “time, effort, and resources required to dismiss a non-probationary teacher for poor performance is too high.”8

It is extremely difficult and costly to fire a teacher. In 2008, USA Today wrote that it cost $250,000 to fire one teacher in New York.9 In Springfield, Illinois, the cost is only slightly lower—$219,000.10 And in some cases, the costs are much higher. In 2005, The Hidden Costs of Tenure, based on an Illinois newspaper investigation, found that cost is a tremendous barrier to removing poorly performing teachers.11 T.J. Wilson, a Monticello attorney specializing in education labor law, says that school officials cite cost as one of the major reasons for not trying to dismiss underperforming teachers. “When I sit down with school administrators who want to fire someone, I tell them to plan on spending at least $100,000 in attorney fees and that they still may lose,” Mr. Wilson says. “Those administrators are sitting there thinking three new teachers could be hired for the cost of firing one bad one. There is always the possibility that the school district may have to cut some program that benefits children, just to pay for the cost of firing a teacher. This is the biggest reason school districts do not try to fire bad teachers.’”

And there are other ways for principals to remove poor-performing teachers from their own buildings, if not from the district. In some districts, principals can involuntarily transfer teachers to an “excess pool,” a process much easier and less politically charged than giving a teacher a negative evaluation. Principals also can urge teachers to transfer to other schools, or they assign teachers to other positions (perhaps one less to the teacher’s liking) in the same building. In this manner, poorly performing teachers get passed from school to school, a process some call the “dance of the lemons.” Even in districts without such policies, it seems that it’s easier, and less controversial, to simply wait out a bad teacher. In some small and rural districts, where the school system is often the largest employer, principals wait for teachers to retire—a process that can take 30 or more years—rather than create the necessary upset, paperwork burdens, and the long process of trying to fire a teacher.

8 Teacher Recruitment, Hiring and Performance Management in Springdale Public Schools (2010). The New Teacher Project. Available online at www.tntp.org/files/TNTP_Springdale_Report_Mar2010.pdf

9 Frank Eltman (2008). Firing Tenured Teachers Isn’t Just Difficult, It Costs You. USA Today. Available online at www.usatoday. com/news/education/2008-06-30-teacher-tenure-costs_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

10 Scott Reeder. The Hidden Costs of Tenure. Available online at http://thehiddencostsoftenure.com

11 Ibid.


Teacher Quality—Stakeholders and Resources There are numerous resources available for information on how to advocate for high-quality teachers in your community. Here is a list of organizations invested in the teacher quality debate.

Name Type Position Website and Useful Publication

Education Trust

Advocacy

Having a high-quality teacher in the classroom is the single most important factor in student achievement, especially for poor and minority students.

www.edtrust.org

Read: Fact Sheet on Teacher Equity, www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/Ed%20Trust%20Facts%20on%20Teacher%20Equity_0.pdf

The New Teacher Project

Advocacy

Teacher evaluations need to be dramatically improved, including differentially rewarding teachers for performance.

www.tntp.org

Read: The Widget Effect, http://tntp.org/publications/reports/the-widget-effect

National Council on Teacher Quality

Advocacy

Current teacher unions block reforms; changes are needed in teacher policies at the federal, state, and local levels in order to increase the number of effective teachers.

www.nctq.org

A customizable database of state policies regarding teachers: www.nctq.org/cb

Read: Invisible Ink in Collective Bargaining Agreements, www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_invisible_ink_20080801115950.pdf

Students First Advocacy

Teacher evaluation should be separated from collective bargaining given the inherent conflict of interest; seniority policies are not in the best interest of children.

www.studentsfirst.org

Read: Agenda, www.studentsfirst.org/blog/entry/america-education-system-is-broken-today-we-release-our-plan-to-begin-fix

Teach for America

Service Provider

Good teachers don’t need to come through formal teacher preparation programs. Provider of alternatively certified teachers; according to Time magazine, Teach for America “places more teachers in U.S. schools (and with better results) than any other preparation program or college.”

www.TeachForAmerica.org

Read: Making a Difference? The Effects of Teach for America in High School, www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411642_Teach_America.pdf

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for a Competitive Workforce

1615 H Street NW Washington, DC 20062

Phone: 202-463-5525 www.uschamber.com/icw

institute for a competitive workforce in focus: a look ... · the institute for a competitive...

Documents