Even as the Boston Teachers Union offered late last week to make much-needed concessions in one key way, it muddied the waters in another.
The union has stated its willingness to accept a reasonable, six-year wage package partly in exchange for more leeway during the implementation of a new teacher evaluation system. Both sides now agree to adopt state regulations that would allow incompetent teachers to be dismissed in as little as 30 days if they fail to improve under a remediation plan. The regulations also provide techniques to help good teachers become even better.
Comments
If the state's language is good enough for 50 communities in the suburbs then it is surely OK for the city's teachers.
It isn't teacher quality that is at risk here contrary to the Globe Editorial... it's teacher due process.
What's wrong about the state language, you ask? just a few common sense-ical ideas. the globe's editorial is so narrow minded, it believes that yo have to sacrifice someone's due process rights to scare them into behaving a certain way. Doesn't sound very 'progressive' to me.
Evaluations at my turnaround school were not helpful. Teachers weren't "feeling the love and support" that Court Street is trying to project to the public. Teachers felt that evaluators were inexperienced, punitive, and teachers felt they could never meet the expectations of the evaluator. They felt that they spent more time preparing to meet the evaluator's criteria, than they actually did preparing for students in the classroom. Teachers resented that, and felt it was a waste of time. I know one good teacher, who is taking early retirement, because the under thirty administrator, accompanied by another administrator from Court Street, tag teamed and bullied him all last year. This was a "good" teacher. He felt that it was age discrimination, by the end of the year, I agreed with him. I strongly suspect 3 of our BTR, 3rd year provisional's have left the system, and have headed to teaching jobs in the suburbs. They were so angry in June, and felt so disrespected, that they would rather pay back the $3,300. they still owe the city, instead of spending another year in our school, in the BPS. They are leaving with a masters degree and 2 state certifications, in SPED and a core subject, at Boston Public School expense. My turnaround school will start off the year minus 4 teachers. Dr. Johnson and her "team" have made a mess. To suggest that the "evaluation system" that BPS piloted at turnaround schools, is the solution is a lie. It is only a tool that will make a bad situation even worse.
Holy smokes! Did the Globe just publish that it is cautious about "data" being used to prove something as serious as firing a teacher? If there is no data, then a teacher's job is subject to the whim and whimsy of a principal. (Didn't buy enough Girl Scout cookies from the principal's daughter? Then kiss your job good-bye.)
And timelines? Heaven forbid a teacher be told that he's doing a poor job within a week. Is that REALLY too much to ask?
Are not data and timelines the heart of journalism? So, why not for education?
The Globe once again muddies the water. When they say that data requirements and timeslines might open the door to union grievances what they are really saying is that administrators should not have to justify their opinion nor should they be required to give teachers timely feedback about their evaluation. If the new evaluation system is to work it has to be about improving teacher performance...not a blank check for principles to get rid of whoever doesn't bow down to them.
".....the union is pushing for so-called “model contract language,” also suggested by the state, that in practice would make the evaluation system hard to enforce; the language is rife with data requirements, timelines, and procedures that open the door for union grievances." A laughable sentence from the Globe. Hard to enforce means someone in administration actually has to do their job and observe the teacher "teaching", cite the reasons for poor performance, and conduct a follow-up visit. Muddying the waters? Quite the opposite.
Once again the Globe publishes yet another article about teacher contacts and omits the salient fact that these new contracts evaluate teacher performance based on student test scores. There's nothing to allow for differences in the students' ability. Every teacher knows that she may teach a bright, motivated class one year and a slower, maybe more troubled group of youngsters the next. Well, with these new contracts that teacher will always be held to the standard of the brightest class. The union is helping the city here by attempting to insert language that relates more to the way schools work rather than catering to politicians and others outside the field of education who don't have a clue a to how education works.
Before recommending such broad powers to an evaluator, one should make sure that evaluator is competent. Word to the wise: many school systems lack any formal process or criteria for evaluating administrators. It is irresponsible of the Globe to recommend policy with only assumptions and so little knowledge or background.
What a fair and balanced article! Pulitzer! Let's fire our way to a better BPS, bad teachers are the problem! They will be replaced by better teachers because they are younger, smarter, better educated, from a better class, and will cost so much less! Maybe we can turn over our schools to affluent districts such as Winchester and Newton. Their teachers are much better. All BPS kids will then go to Harvard because they will get better because their teachers are better. It's all about getting better!