Dismissal Versus Professional Development for Teachers at Program Improvement Schools

Good morning friends and guests!

Nothing is more effective than a brisk early morning run than an adrenalin-rousing, fire-in-the-belly promoting email from the NEA, such as this:

D.C. schools chancellor imposes plan for dismissing ineffective teachers.
The Washington Post (10/3, B1, Turque) reports on the front page of its Metro section, "D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee made good yesterday on repeated threats to bypass labor contract negotiations by imposing her own program to fire ineffective teachers, including a measure that gives poor-performing instructors 90 days to improve or face dismissal." The move follows the city and its teachers reaching an impasse on a previous pay-for-performance plan. The "Plan B" program "includes a new teacher evaluation system based primarily on student test scores and other achievement benchmarks." In addition, Rhee will "employ rules that are on the books but seldom used, including one that allows her to" overlook seniority in determining "which teachers would lose jobs in the event of declining enrollment or school closures." Meanwhile, "Washington Teachers' Union President George Parker denounced Rhee's decision." According to Parker, Rhee should focus on supporting and professionally developing teachers, rather than terminate them.
The AP (10/3) and WJLA-TV Arlington (10/3) also report the story.
Editorials tout merits of two-tier pay plan. In an editorial titled "D.C. Teachers Left Behind," the Washington Post (10/3, A22) argues that "D.C. teachers ought to be asking whose interests their union leaders are tending to at the bargaining table." The Post notes that Rhee not only "hoped to make the union a partner in her efforts," but was also "offering teachers a choice" with her previous, two-tier plan: "No one would be forced to give up tenure, and those opting for the lower pay level would still get...a 28 percent salary boost over five years, plus $10,000 in bonuses." However, since the plan was not approved, "the $200 million Ms. Rhee has raised from private foundations willing to pay for the first five years of her plan" is uncertain. As "Rhee's offer is still on the table," the Post concludes that "teachers who have confidence in their students and in themselves" need "to find their voice and speak out."
The New York Times (10/3, A24) is also running an editorial that is largely in favor of Rhee's plan. According to the Times, "The higher salaries and bonuses would make the city a magnet for teacher talent, and the new rules would make it easier to dismiss teachers who were not meeting the requirements of the job." Although "Rhee's proposal represents a dramatic break with the past," the Times argues that, "with student achievement lagging, and Washington's school system still seen as one of the worst big-city systems in the country, a dramatic break may be exactly what it needs."

***********************************************************************************

You know I could not just read that and go back to Saturday cleaning. Instead, I sat down and wrote our local teachers' union representative ( for those anti-union folks reading this--- just become a teacher in the current politically charged insane environment that is education at this moment in time---you'll convert to pro-union mentality in no time).

Good morning [ Union President's Name],
I just thought you would be interested in this article ( though I am sure you have already seen it).
Scary. Scary. Scary. I especially worry for new naive inexperienced teachers who are thrown into inner city and Program Improvement schools and have no idea what the expectations are despite their years of pre-entry training ( believe me, I have been there). These types of measures will be critically unfair to teachers who work at PI schools...it's a bit discriminatory.
Stupidity often begins in D.C. and is refined in California, so I worry about these things. Just look at the current financial mess!
I am doing my Masters project on retaining teachers at PI schools. Teachers I interviewed have all said the same thing about the exceptional stresses and pressures which exist on these campuses ( poor administration creates even more difficulties). They all say, especially those who have moved on to Non-PI schools, that teachers outside the "PI grind" have no idea what it is like to work at one of these exceptional sites.
My question is: At the end of the day, when teachers have been "dismissed" for being "ineffective" because they are unable to raise test scores because of the many current flawed educational demands on children( and therefore their teachers), and additionally commercial curriculum and subject matter which lack motivational elements children need to have more success, and administration which negates the realities of many of the statistical limitations which exist when expecting test scores to rise ( especially among students who are English language learners, from low socio-economic backgrounds, and from underprivileged ethnic minority groups), who is going to teach the children at these at-risk schools? Who will want to risk the the financial investment and time in a teacher credential and their career to work at these schools?
It is these children who will suffer.
Who are these administrators? They are OUT OF TOUCH with R-E-A-L-I-T-Y!
Sincerely,
Lovable Me
*********************************************************************************
And now let's go to the court of public opinion regarding this matter (refer to the NEA email above). The New York Times is running an editorial that is largely in favor of Rhee's plan, eh? Hm.

Let me just guess that the reporter/writer has not worked at an inner city or Program Improvement school.

It's just a guess.

They said, "The higher salaries and bonuses would make the city a magnet for teacher talent..." True. New teachers would be drawn by mercenary minded ideals. And how would this benefit their teaching or their students? In my research survey, teachers at PI schools said they DID NOT stay at PI schools because they were paid more money to work there.

Sure, these new teachers will get their cash, but without proper training, specifically for issues they would deal with at a PI school, they will probably not even have to be "dismissed". As statistics have revealed many of these new teachers will take their money, along with their high anxiety levels, and disillusionment and run, as soon as they get a chance!

The Times writer also concluded, "...and the new rules would make it easier to dismiss teachers who were not meeting the requirements of the job." Hm.

And what are those requirements exactly? From my experience at a PI school, I can say the requirements and "rules of the teaching game" change with an irritating frequency. So, let Ms. Rhee beware. She should make a careful decade long detailed study of the differences between the teaching requirements at expectations at PI versus Non-PI campuses. My study reveals there are many. Perhaps in Administrationland, the land of unrealistic dreams and outcomes, there is a master list of requirements that will be fair for educators at ALL schools and for the students who they teach.

Thank goodness for reason! Thank goodness for people like Washington Teachers' Union President George Parker who denounced, Administrationland Hostess, Rhee's decision. Parker's admonition for Rhee to focus on supporting and professionally developing teachers, rather than terminating them, is what my research shows teachers who have worked at PI schools feel would be "absolutely" effective.