“As more states and districts seek to improve teacher evaluation, the risk is that reform is done to teachers rather than with them,” said the head of the NEA in a statement accompanying the organization’s “Proposed Policy Statement on Teacher Evaluation and Accountability.” In a similar document released earlier this year, Randi Weingarten, the head of the AFT, released recommendations for “a procedure for teacher discipline that could be utilized as a framework for processing fairly and expeditiously allegations of teacher wrongdoing.”

Though both the AFT and the NEA proposals touch on issues of tenure, they are dealing with two entirely different subjects. The AFT is proposing a system that will, after a 100-day process replete with multiple hearings and meetings, allow for the termination of teachers guilty of “wrongdoing such as criminal offenses in the classroom, abusive practices toward students, and discrimination.” It quite explicitly ignores “allegations of teacher effectiveness.” The NEA proposal, on the other hand, is (supposedly) designed to improve the process of getting incompetent teachers out of the classroom.

These proposals come in reaction to nightmarish stories of dismissals that take years and cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars. Are they superior to the status quo?

Short answer? No, not at all. Longer answer? See below.

Let’s look at the new NEA proposal first. What has been offered by the NEA Board is little more than a reiteration of the status quo. They want to maintain tenure (referred to as “career status” here), which would be achieved after completing “probationary status” and either meeting or exceeding expectations for the final two years of probationary status. Evaluations, meanwhile, will only consist partly of demonstrations of “a teacher’s impact on student learning and growth,” and even then, it might be determined on wishy-washy grounds instead of concrete measures (like standardized testing or value-added evaluations).

What happens if a teacher doesn’t pass muster and a principal wants him fired? Well, “ratings by more than one evaluator must be provided in support of an action.” If a teacher doesn’t like the outcome? “The teacher must have the right to contest the evaluation, and have access to the information necessary to do so. … The teacher may be counseled to leave the profession or subject to fair, transparent and efficient dismissal process that provides due process.” In other words, the same black hole of bureaucratic nonsense that we have now is what the NEA considers a brave “reform.”

What about the AFT proposal? In a way, this document is even more absurd. The long and the short of it is this: It seems that a teacher could not show up for weeks, give no excuse, and still wait out a 100 day hearing process, collecting pay all the while, and still might not be let go.

Imagine how that would play out in the real world:

Boss: “You didn’t come into work for the last two weeks. Is everything okay?”

You: “Yeah, just didn’t feel like it.”

Boss: “OK. You’re fired.”

How does this play out in the education world?

Principal: “You didn’t come into work for the last two weeks. Is everything okay?”

Teacher: “Yeah, just didn’t feel like it.”

Principal: “OK. You’re fired.”

Teacher: “Not so fast, buddy! First off, one of my fellow teachers or a student or a parent needs to file a formal complaint with you. Then, you have to file that complaint with the superintendent. Then, the superintendent has to notify me and my AFT rep via certified mail within three days of receiving the complaint. You have to meticulously detail all the absences. I might ask for a supplementation of additional facts. Then we’ll undergo a preliminary screening process, and follow that up with a formal hearing. (You better hope you can win that formal hearing, because if you don’t, you’ll have to pay my union for the representation they provided.) After that, we’ll select a “Hearing Examiner” (approved by my union, naturally, who you, naturally, will have to compensate), before we finally have a hearing. After the Hearing Examiner hands down their decision and punishment – which can range from nothing to a suspension to a dismissal – I can then file an appeal with the courts as applicable by state law. Did you know that “the vast majority of states provide an appeals process”? Neat, huh!

And this is the improved process, according to the AFT. Leaving aside the problems with using arbitrators (as this New Yorker article demonstrates, they have a vested interest in keeping the unions happy), it’s hard to see how a reasonable person could consider this a real improvement.

In the world of the teachers unions, however, these proposals are seen as legitimate progress. That’s how topsy turvy the system has become. You want a reform proposal? Here’s a simple one for you:

Give administrators the power to fire teachers who deserve to be fired, whether or not it’s for not showing up for work/committing a felony/sexual abuse/drug use/discrimination, or for failing their students in the classroom.

There’s a one-sentence reform package that is infinitely more effective than 15 combined pages from the NEA and the AFT. I offer it to our nation’s school systems gratis.

Iannazzi isn’t just any college dropout. As the Providence Journal’s Edward Achorn reveals, Iannazzi is the well-connected son of a labor union leader who employs the son of a state senator. Got that?

Well, here’s Achorn’s research to help you follow the money train that young Stephen Iannazzi is riding on the taxpayers’ dime:

Donald Iannazzi, the business manager for Local 1033, the Laborers International Union affiliate that employs 30-year-old lawyer Charles Ruggerio. Charles is the son of Senator Ruggerio.

While Stephen’s qualifications may be on the thin side, his family’s political connections are not.

His father Donald received an annual salary of $212,658, plus $53,212 in “other compensation,” in 2009, according to Local’s 990-filing with the IRS as an organization exempt from paying federal tax. (Senator Ruggerio enjoys a $190,246-a-year compensation package from an arm of the Laborers International Union.)

The family’s employment in state offices and the mayor of Providence’s offices fans out from there.

According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Rhode Islanders earned $42,579 per capita in 2010.  It’d be interesting to see Governor Lincoln Chaffee and state leaders justify Stephen Iannazzi’s unjustifiable salary to the people of Rhode Island who are earning a lot less than $88,000.

As the old saying goes, “It’s not who you know, it’s what labor union you’re connected to.”

Education reformers breathlessly announced a new deal in Illinois that received sign off from both politicians and the state’s biggest teachers unions. What does this bill do?

• It changes how teachers receive tenure. Instead of simply receiving tenure after several years of service, teachers can now get tenure by receiving “excellent” ratings for three years in a row, or by receiving satisfactory evaluations for four years.
• Requires a strike in Chicago to be approved by 75% of members instead of a simple majority.
• Requiring that layoffs be decided by teacher quality instead of length of service. Length of service will still serve as a tiebreaker.

And…that’s it.

Now, let’s be clear: This is better than the situation Illinois schools were faced with before. The elimination of “last in, first out” layoff procedures in particular is a great thing. There also appears to be a provision that might allow state superintendents to revoke the teachers license of any teacher who receives two unsatisfactory evaluations in a seven year period (we’ll see if that makes it into the final language of the bill).

But Chicago teachers will still be allowed to go on strike if, say, the city pushes for longer days. And teachers will still be able to get tenure in an amount of time that is only modestly longer than they could previously. Tenure will remain a problem, one that wraps school systems up in endless streams of red tape if they want to get rid of an incompetent educator.

Is this really good enough?

Photo via Flickr user mammal.

Photo credit: Bill McBain

Don’t expect the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to turn a profit any time soon. Thanks to a multi-billion dollar contract that the financially challenged (to put it mildly) agency negotiated with its biggest labor union, the USPS is poised to keep on delivering losses as routinely as it delivers mail.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) thinks the agency’s contract with the American Postal Workers Union, originally intended to save USPS $3.8 billion over 4 ½ years,  will do exactly the opposite. From Bloomberg:

“This contract falls short,” Issa said at a hearing about the Postal Service’s labor costs. “We have deep concerns that some of the provisions of the contract may in fact be the wrong direction, to less flexibility, less ability to trim the workforce and less ability to in the future make the kinds of investments we need to make.”

In other words, the agency won’t be in the black for the foreseeable future.

Adding to USPS’ financial woes, Bloomberg reports that the agency indicates it will “run out of cash unless Congress permits it to delay a $5.5 billion payment, due Sept. 30, for health benefits for future retirees.” And here’s the kicker: “The labor costs include payments for those benefits.”

Despite this grim financial forecast for USPS, Postmaster General Patrick Donohue told the oversight committee that his budget-busting negotiations with the postal workers union represent, in his mind at least, “a responsible agreement.”

Read more

What’s interesting about the Post piece is a conversation between a teacher and his evaluator at the end of the story. It neatly encapsulates the way that teachers unions and their members entirely miss the point of evaluation systems:

Bethel gave him the final score, which was low. If the trend continued, Harris realized, he could lose his job.

“It’s just — I don’t feel that I’m putting in ‘minimally effective’ effort at all,” he said.

For Bethel, this was most excruciating part of the job. He began shutting off his computer.

“This does not measure your effort,” he said, packing his bag. “But I do see your effort, Mr. Harris.”

“So — what is this measuring?” Harris asked.

“It’s measuring the effectiveness of that effort,” Bethel said. “This is not a reflection of your passion for education, your love for students. Not at all.”

Teachers unions often make the argument that their members are working as hard as they can and they shouldn’t be held accountable for their successes and failures — they should just get an “A For Effort” and continue moving up the pay scale and seniority ladder. This mentality has failed: Prior to the implementation of IMPACT, almost every Washington, D.C. teacher received a satisfactory rating and very few were fired for performance. What did that get our nation’s capital? Abysmal graduation rates and children who couldn’t read or do math. Giving effort is commendable, but getting results is what matters.