Collective bargaining and budget deficits

So it was collective bargaing that caused the state budget crises circulating the United States, right?  I'm certainly not a union appologist- but let me offer a second solution.

A revenue bubble caused by housing policy caused the state budget crises.  It began with a new innovation in the mortgage industry- the mortgage backed security.  Back in the 1980's- savings and loans would take deposits from customers and then offer mortgages from those deposits.   However, this limited the number of loans that could be made (at least in theory).   Every loan required a proportional amount of money in reserve.   Securitization of loans changed this.  Through securitization, loans could be sold on a market.   Once loans were off the books- and into the hands of a 3rd party- lenders could issue more loans.  They quickly found out that they could make more money selling loans than they could holding them.   As these loans became more numerous- politicians were asked, then asked again, to regulate them.   Neither Republicans nor Democrats wanted any part of this- as to do so would limit home ownership rates.   Instead, they basked in the glory of an accelerating housing market.   More and more people were realizing the American dream. 

As the housing market accelerated, ratings agencies- who were tasked with rating the newly securitized debt.   However, these industries quickly succumbed to the allure of money- rather than the nitty gritty work of effectively analyzing this debt.  Banks came to ratings agencies expecting AAA ratings (the highest rating).   If Moody's would not give it to them, they went to S&P, and vice versa.  This quickly became a conflict of interest- for if ratings agencies wanted market share- the path was to keep the banks happy.   Before long, nearly every basket of loans was AAA, creating what was essentially a false demand for more mortgages.  A bubble.   Standards shot- the banks felt free to loosen their credit standards.  If every loan could be sold in a AAA basket-  it didn't matter who they gave a loan- no matter their credit worthiness.   The loans were easy to sell- and with a AAA rating- they sold at a premium price on the market.   The house of cards was stacked.

The housing market exploded- and nearly everyone benefitted.  Although the revenue bubble was not caused by public sector unions- they certainly benefited from it in the short term.   It's funny now that some people blame unions for bankrupting state coffers.   As if the money that went toward salaries of unionized employees would not have gone somewhere else.   Even my 3 year knows that no matter the size of the cookie- he had better eat it- lest someone else come along and take it from him (that would be me).   I do know of one state that put money aside for the recession- Montana.   Good for Montana.   Smart.

The point here is that collective bargaining was no more the cause of the state deficits than it was the cause of the state surpluses which preceded it.   To cast collective bargaining as the problem- as is currently being done in Wisconsin- is nothing more than politics.  The public sector will be forced to take less money now- just like they got more money when states were fiscally strong.   But to point the finger to the collective bargaining process- is scapegoating- not problem solving.   I think we all deserve much more of the latter.

And if we want to have a debate over collecting bargaining- or giving people choice when joining a union- let's have that argument.    But let's have that argument over the merits.    It could prove a much more useful dialogue than what is going on now.   And perhaps we could all be made better off- I nominate the governor from Montana to lead the discussion.

The value of a contract

For a few months now, I have developed an interest in the work of Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist from Duke.   His work has many applications in the world of teaching.   In his this most recent blog post- Ariely talks about the value of the handshake.    Union members, on the other hand, often harp on the importance of the contract.   We can't work during lunch.   We can't be required to come at this time or that time.  Or from the other perspective, I can't believe so and so left before the duty day ended. I think we'd all be better off if things were settled with a handshake.    I once read that one of the least happiest professionals is the attorney.   They bill by the hour- or rather, the 6 minute.   Constantly reminded of the market value of their work- their happiness is drained.  


I suppose many see the handshake as something straight out of Utopia.  But as the Montgomery County Council- and the state of Maryland begin their budget decisions- they will most likely remind all teachers not of the handshake- but of the written contract.   I suppose we'll have to wait see what the result will be.   From Ariely's post:

All contracts deal with the direct aspects of the expected exchange and with unexpected consequences. Incomplete contracts lay out the general parameters of the exchange (the part that we shake hands over), while the unexpected consequences are covered by social norms governing what is appropriate and what is not. The social norms are what can motivate me to work with you, and what would establish goodwill in resolving problems that might arise.


As for complete contracts, they too specify the parameters of an exchange, but they don’t imply the same adherence to social norms. If something is left out, or if circumstances change, there’s no default to goodwill—it’s happy hunting season for all. When we use complete contracts as a basis for working together, we take away flexibility, reasonableness, and understanding and replace them with a narrow definition of expectations. That can be costly.

The failed logic of seniority based lay-offs.

A union cannot also be a professional organization so long as it defends seniority rules.   What type of organization protects more experienced workers over less experienced ones irregardless of quality?   Not one concerned about professional reputatoin of its workforce, that is for sure.  Here's a great editorial from the New York Post.   Richard Whitmire explains the problem associated with seniority based decision-making.

National teacher union leaders seem to sense their vulnerability on this issue. Rather than defend seniority-based layoffs, they insist the real issue is avoiding layoffs at all. Or, they answer indirectly. “In no other profession is experience deemed a liability rather than an asset,” said Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union. “Teaching is a complex profession, and experience matters.”

Yes, but nobody is arguing that teachers get worse with experience, only that the best teachers aren’t always the most experienced.

We haven’t heard any good defense from union officials of last-hired-first-fired — perhaps because there aren’t any. If you want to the best teachers on the job, you find a different way to allocate layoffs. For political protection against what Rhee experienced in Washington, districts should announce the grounds for layoffs well in advance.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bottom_of_seniority_top_of_the_class_LBFY3yQDCJcnxcJexZ2JDO#ixzz1DCnBh8On

Do we protect incompetent teachers?

I probably don't agree with 90% of what this blogger writes, but ok, so, I'm going to do it.  A quote from Liberty's Lifeline:

Why in the world would a talented teacher want to link his career to an incompetent teacher and be sold to a school district as a package? Are teachers professionals or are they not? If they are, then why do they aspire to the level of an unskilled assembly line worker?

Every school teacher should probably ask whether or not this is the case with their own union- and act accordingly. I believe in unionization. However I also believe in choice and democracy and accountability. 

Education and the (state of the) union

Who are we?   What do we stand for?   And how do we position ourselves to be the strongest possible professional workforce?   I wish I could fight for what I believe fulltime.  Instead, I am only left to watch and wonder: what could the teaching workforce be if unions led reform instead of responded to it?   What if teachers were the reformers instead of the protectionists?   That's an educational revolution worthy of pursuit.   The following excerpt is from John Merrow's blog, Taking Note.   In it he captures the heart of Obama's message on education.   If we could only hear it and act on it.

“Stop with the trade union stuff,” the President was saying. “Start putting the interests of students first.”


Unions don’t seem to have much choice in the matter, given the outpouring of anti-union and anti-teacher rhetoric and actions in New Jersey, Alabama, Wyoming and just about any state you can name.

Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers, the smaller of the two unions, seems to get it, but she has to persuade her mostly urban locals to move. The far larger National Education Association hasn’t shown any signs that I have seen that it recognizes that the ground has shifted, dramatically and probably permanently.

Someone else who doesn't get it

The Chicago Tribune editorial board recently published this commentary on the state of the education reform movement.   A movement which union leadership describes as an attack on the teaching profession. This is a poltical move by unions, and their sympathizers,that I have never quite understood. After all, this is not the fight for teacher livilhood that took place in 1900.   This is quite a different fight, in different financial times.    I think the Tribune says explains it best:

Some union leaders look at that and accuse us of teacher-bashing. This has reached a pretty silly level. In a recent newsletter, the president of American Federation of Teachers Local 604 awarded us his "2010 Doofus Award."

"The Tribune editorial staff has, for the past year, trashed public school teachers," wrote local President Dick Manley. "Whether the issue is tenure, seniority, pensions, salary, evaluation or respect, as far as they are concerned, we come up short. They believe that we are at the bottom of the food chain. … Color me defensive, if you will, but perhaps this is an example being judged best by the enemies we make."

Mr. Manley, since you raised it: Why are you so defensive? Why are some union leaders so defensive about teachers being measured on what their students learn?

We're so busy being defensive in fact, that we have no time to move forward.   And that is the real shame.   You don't need money additional money to move forward.   You just need the will.

Student's First- a take on evaluation

Michelle Rhee's new advocacy group, Student's First,  just came out with a rather extensive list of priorities.  I don't always like the tone- but I unfortunately find that much of what her organization says contains too much truth in it.   These are criticisms that unions should not take lightly.   Viewing this simplistically as a war on teachers might galvanize some, but will hurt the political clout of unions in the long-run.   There are valid criticisms here.  And to simply ignore them does a disservice to the majority of teachers unions pruport to represent.   I believe the following: that teacher unions will be better politically situated if they do not simply do what is best for teachers, but when they do what is best for teachers and students.   The public is perfectly willing to pay teachers more for what they do.   But they have reached a boiling point- they want to pay effective teachers more, not ineffective ones.   And until we acknowledge and address our faults- we willl  leave not only the public wanting- but the profession.   We will also in effect turnover political muscle and decision making to reformers- those who often have little educational experience.   This is not the fault of those reformers, as some would like to argue, but rather this is due to our own failure to address valid criticisms in a forthright and proactive manner.

The following  provocative ideas come from the Student First website.   Ideas that as I said, contain too much truth.  I can only imagine the union response to these "attacks."

Union leaders are legally obligated to represent the interests of all of their members, including ineffective members. Although union leaders express an interest in quality, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their organization to enhance unity and protect low performers. As a result, union leadership, or the vocal minority of teachers, disproportionately influences the evaluation process to skew toward interests that conflict with those of high-performing or promising teachers. The majority of rank-and-file teachers deeply value strong colleagues and a culture of excellence. The ethic of high standards becomes lost in the process when the union dedicates time, effort, and money fighting for the lowest performers. Simply put, labor leadership has a conflict of interest when it comes to evaluation of their members. Recognizing this conflict, steps should be taken to balance the mission of school districts against the collective interest of district employees. A school should not be impaired in its ability to serve families by an evaluation system negotiated to protect the jobs of poor performers.




In school districts across the country, superintendents have no choice but to accept the teacher evaluation system codified in local teacher union contracts. This practice has become the norm over the past 20 years, resulting in weak evaluation systems in district after district. Meanwhile, even the most forward-thinking superintendents rarely have the political backing to negotiate better systems, since school board elections can be easily influenced by highly motivated union organizers. In this way, unions often hold a controlling interest in both sides of the negotiating table. This conflict of interest creates a barrier to developing and implementing meaningful evaluations that are based on what practices will most benefit the students. By including teachers in the evaluation process and simultaneously taking it off the bargaining table, districts will have new opportunities to build on teachers' strengths, drive professionalism, and demand great results for their students.

Is MCEA any different?

The Montgomery County teacher's union, MCEA, recently reprinted this post by Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post.   But as I read it over, I couldn't help but think that my union, MCEA, was no different than the political machine that created the problems Strauss blogs about:

[If we cared about children] we would never tolerate a poverty rate among children of 21 percent.

That’s one in five kids who live in poverty, or nearly 15 million children in the United States who live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, currently pegged at $22,050 a year for a family of four.

And that, of course, doesn’t include the kids who live in families of four who make $22,051 a year. Or $22,052. In fact, research shows that families need an income of about twice the poverty level to cover basic costs, so at that rate, 42 percent of American children live at or close enough to the poverty level so that basics aren’t being covered.

Which groups in the U.S. are least likely to be in poverty?   The old.   Those on social security.   It is the same group of people who are politically active.   Those unable to vote?   Most likely to be in poverty.

Now let's talk about the haves and have nots in our union.    A 1st year teacher makes half as much as a teacher who has taught for twenty years.     A 1st year teacher is involuntarily transferred before a more senior teacher.   A 1st year teacher must be fired before a more senior teacher.   If our children are the second class citizens of society, then our new teachers are the second class citizens of the union.

I went to an MCEA Representative Assembly meeting in December.  My first.   The median age in that room must have been 50 years old.   Retired teachers have more of a say in our union than new teachers.  This is not hyperbole.   I could count on one hand the number of teachers under 30 at the meeting.  This despite the fact that 60% of our teachers have less than 10 years of experience.   Of course, this is just democracy in action.

We can say we're a democracy, but that doesn't mean we represent the interests of our constituents.  It is much more likely that we represent the interests of those who are politically active.   And that's why we continue to have arcane seniority rules.   And it's why we'll continue to have reform dictated to us from above.

Pleasant testing, kids.

The problem with seniority

The debate over evaluation systems has turned into an "us vs. them."   It's the crazy politicians vs. the crazy unionites.   According to the crazy politicians, the crazy unionites obstruct reform to defend the worst teachers among us.   According to the crazy unionites, the crazy politicians have ill-concieved notions of effective teaching that will foster competition instead of collaboration, and narrow teacher focus to a set of poorly designed test questions that tell us nothing about what we really want to know.

The politicians, motivated by short-term goals and "I told you so" data points, want quick and instant reform before the next politician comes along with a new plan about how to save education.   The unionites, controlled by the activist and most often politically extreme that control their ranks, seek to protect the jobs and salaries of the existing employees, often at the expense of the creation of a superior and professionalized workforce.    They value the status quo.

And so the reform discussion devolves into debate, less about the public interest, more about  self-serving "talking points" each side hopes will allow them to "take the hill" a la Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders.  Debates have victors.   Discussions do not.   Discussions involve compromise based on the strength of argument.   Debates involve rigid positions which define compromise as a sign of weakness.  A number of bloggers have now directed me to Don Sutton's post on the value of "Strong Opinions, Weakly Held" which highlights the importance of being able to both argue vehemently and concede graciously.  Crazy politicians and crazy unionites have mastered the first half of this equation.

Which brings me to a teacher's solution to the curent call for reform.   This group of expert teachers came from all over the country, and from both political parties.   They offer guidelines for education reform that should make any school district think twice about their current system of evaluation and compensation.   Chief among these reforms, in my mind, is a way to weaken the seniority system; a system that rewards longevity in place of leadership and responsibility.   From The Center for Teacher Quality report:

Reward leadership, not seniority. Qualified teachers who take on additional responsibilities — mentoring novices and peers and preparing new teachers, creating family- and community-outreach programs, serving on advisory councils and the like — should be paid for their time outside the classroom. The number of years on the job should not determine who gets tapped for these leadership opportunities; demonstrated ability should.

When the debating stops, and the discussion begins, it should begin here- with common sense reforms made by teachers who know the system, and understand how to fix them.   We need to reward teachers who lead.   We need to reward teachers who are experts in their craft.   We need to reward those who help other teachers become better at their craft.   And we need to reward those who take on added responsibilities, not fewer ones.

School Reform Debate

The current debate over school reform seems to have divided itself into two irreconcilable camps: the Rhee and Klein types chirping about the evil unions blocking reform at the expense of students across the country, and the Diane Ravitch and union sympathizers crying afoul as teacher names are published in newspapers without so much as a wink of recognition that the standardized tests that produce these lists are not only unreliable, but are single handedly ruining any chance of improving our education system.   What do these two sides have in common?   They're both wrong.   Or I suppose if you're an optimist- they are both right.

As someone who doesn't care about power- because I have none- I think I can speak on this subject with atleast some degree of authority.   The sides described above are concerned about what's best for education just like our United States Congress is concerned about creating a nice well-rounded bill that reflects sound judgement rather than partisan politics.   So I'll do my best to dissect both sides of the argument.   A few items I'll try to discuss of over the next month- maybe after the elections.

1) Teacher unions have not been effective in policing their own profession.
2)  There are outside the classroom factors that have a large impact on what goes on inside the classroom.   But they are not an excuse for what goes on inside the classroom.
3) Due process is not an all or nothing proposition- it can coexist with fair and robust evaluation systems.
4) Value Added Modeling has the potential to be a useful feedback tool, but has severe limitations.
5) Standardized testing is not the root of all evil- nor a cure all- but when done 50 different ways in 50 different states- creates an extraordinary amount of wasted resources in the form of duplication.
6) Pay for performance will not likely impact student acheivement- however seniority rules protected by unions likely do more harm than good.

Concensus?

Gordon Maciennes of Taking Note discusses the concensus that has been reached between reformers and unions. I'm not sure we've reached any concensus here in MCPS. We prefer avoidance to concensus.

With all the controversy around VAM, there is a growing consensus between hard-core pay-for-performance advocates and teacher union activists:

•the current teacher evaluation system is close to useless, since just about every teacher is judged to be at least “satisfactory” if not “excellent”;
•VAM is a potentially promising method that might improve teacher evaluation and development, but it requires additional research and refinement;
•even when fine-tuned and more reliable, VAM should never be the sole measure of teacher effectiveness (the disagreement focuses on whether VAM should count for 30 percent or 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation); and,
•the other factors that should be incorporated in an improved teacher evaluation system are much squishier as they rely on professional and personal judgments from classroom observations or analysis of student work that are not uniform and quantifiable like standardized tests.

Teachers' Unions' Last Stand

Great article in the New York Times magazine entitled The Teachers' Unions' Last Stand. A must but lengthy read on Teachers' Unions and Race to the Top. Read it critically, and then read this blog by Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post. I'm definitely skeptical of any claim that charter schools, by the mere act of being charter schools, are any better or worse than public schools.

Overheard

I've been doing some listening. And reading. And thinking. And I've noticed a resounding juxtaposition in what I hear from educators.

First, there's this idea amongst union members that teachers are not respected, that we are not appreciated for the work for we do, and that we should be rewarded by having fewer requirements placed on us by administrators. A few select quotes from the MCEA discussion board to demonstrate this premise:

“Her point was that we don't stand up for ourselves. We have such an important task in front of us yet we are willing to settle for conditions that stand in the way of our success”

“Once again, this is a question of professionalism and how we are treated. “

“Nothing will change about our workload/time issues unless teachers find some way to say 'enough'.”

“It is time for us to let the county know that what is essential for good instruction, teachers, and students is the time to plan effective lessons, assess student progress, reteach and reassess. Right now teachers are working well beyond what they are paid to prepare for their students.”

"We are being asked to blindly accept a watered down contract with a few minor provisions in exchange for not getting anything of substance to appease an already divided work force"

On the other hand, I don't hear anyone saying that we wouldn't do this work if it weren't required. In fact, much of the work done by teachers when we're not teaching is not done out of contractual duty, but rather out of a good-hearted understanding of the nature of our job. We want students to achieve. And we're willing to do what is necessary to make sure this happens.

What I hear, is that teachers want to be rewarded and appreciated for this hard work. For eating lunch with one hand, while reteaching and retesting with the other. For going to a sporting events just to build a teacher-student relationship. For chaperoning an event at 7pm when they could finally be spending quality time with their family.

This reward, and here is where my views of the teaching profession are different than many of my colleagues, should be a merit based pay system. It is what we desperately want, but what we have convinced ourselves is not possible to attain.

As a profession, we're so afraid that we won't be evaluated fairly, we have boxed ourselves into a system that rewards us based on years of service instead of what we would desperately prefer. We don't really want one less meeting, or one less chaperon duty. What we really want is someone to come into our classroom and say to us, "you are doing all you can do, and you do it so well, that it with great honor and much appreciation that I inform you of your raise for next year."

Perhaps the largest obstacle to the creation of this new system, is that teachers have such an intricate understanding of the considerable variables that go into doing our job effectively, that we can't imagine a system that could effectively capture that success. But is precisely this intricate knowledge, that should be pooled together in the creation of a new evaluation system. Our knowledge is not the problem, it is the solution; an evaluation system created by us and for us that determines the amount of "step" or "raise" in any given year.

As a profession, it is clear to me that we need that affirmation. We need that reward. And not mind you, at the expense of collectively bargained pool of funds, but a redivision of those collectively bargained funds based on the delivery of quality instruction as judged by an evaluation system created by teachers themselves.

This is what we crave.

The Wheels of Change Spin Elsewhere

With New York now evaluating teachers based on four benchmarks, highly effective, effective, developing, ineffective, the state lines up as perhaps the biggest state ready to receive Race to the Top funds. I just don't see these same conversations about evaluations happening in Maryland, which is disconcerting. Instead its just a lot of bickering and blaming, which is not a win for anyone. A new evaluation system will allow us to dismiss ineffective tenured teachers more expeditiously, and put in place merit based incentives for the most effective teachers. From An Editorial from the New York Daily News:

A teacher rated ineffective would be entitled to coaching. After two ineffective ratings in a row, a district could seek termination before an arbitrator mandated to accept the rating as significant grounds for firing and to decide within 60 days.

Such sureness and speed would be a marked break from the near impossibility of letting an incompetent teacher go today... Only instructors who wound up on the lowest rung for two straight years would face a swift ax.

Dan Brown, a teacher in New York, remarked that this is actually a win for teachers. I cannot agree with his logic more emphatically. As he puts it in his opinion piece from the same paper:

Teacher evaluations were long overdue for an overhaul. Last year, fewer than 2% of New York City teachers were rated "unsatisfactory." You can practically count on one hand the number of city teachers fired for incompetence over the past two years. That's crazy, and it reflects poorly on all teachers to have such a softball system in place.

Maybe what Maryland needs is an article about rubber rooms or some other travesty of our educational system for more people to hop on board the reform train. Colorado's aboard. I have intentions to write the Montgomery County Board of Education on this matter when things slow down at school (at the local level, the Board of Education must initiate evaluation changes). When I do write, I'll be sure to report what I find.

Another Progressive Union

This one in Washington. Or wait, this other one in Indiana. Young teachers going again before the tenured ones. Do you know that as a teacher, the only thing you can do to "earn" more money is to do something besides teach? That's right, do something besides focus on the quality of your teaching, and you can earn more money. Be a baseball coach (everyday after school) and you can earn more money. Stay and work on a killer lesson, and you get nothing. Now that's progressive.

From the Seattle News Tribune:

Gordon, 27, teaches English - including Advanced Placement English. He's the faculty adviser for the school's Key Club, Latino Club and the junior class. He mentors students at First Creek Middle School.

On this particular week, he also is helping students organize a blood drive. And he will end the week as an emcee at the school's spring sports pep rally, where he will also be named most inspirational male teacher.

In his four years on the Mount Tahoma staff - first as a student teacher, then three years as a full-fledged faculty member Gordon has become a fixture at the school that is also his alma mater.

But his days as a Thunderbird are numbered, because of declining student enrollment and seniority rules that govern how teachers are moved within the school district.

"A lot of our teachers are getting displaced for next year, and they're doing it by seniority," said Mount Tahoma junior Addison Sandoval. "Younger teachers are going to have to leave. Those are the teachers that are active in the school community."

Make Administrators Accountable for Student Achievement

Recent debate about Race to the Top funds has centered around whether teachers should be held accountable for student achievement. But I have not seen much discussion of holding administrators accountable for the student achievement that occurs in their school. This might be even more important than holding teachers accountable. If principals were held accountable, they would actually have an incentive to get rid of ineffective teachers. Currently, principals fail to get rid of most ineffective teachers because its too much of a pain... guilt, documentation, time, effort, and for what? It's easier just to let them slide by. After all, principals are not punished when an ineffective teacher continues to teach in their building. But what if they were? What if their salaries were determined by the amount of learning that occured in their building? I'd bet you'd see alot more ineffective teachers dismissed than we do now.

Teacher tenure under attack

A brief informational on the "attack" on teacher tenure courtesy of NPR. I'm all for due process, except when the costs of that due process is a dilution of the teaching profession and thousands, or rather hundreds of thousands of dollars, for each ineffective teacher that is dismissed. These are resources that can't be recovered and could be used to help teachers who are effective, or could be effective with a few more available resources. There should be ways to expedite the process of dismissal in extreme cases. For instance, if a teacher is chronically late for work, or if a teacher refuses to write an instruction objective for a lesson, they should be streamlined for dismissal. These "red flags" could expedite the dismissal process, and save thousands of tax-payer dollars. Extending the path to tenure to three years is not a bad idea either.

Conflict looms

The Washington Post notes a show down could be looming between the state and MCPS over the proposed requirement that student achievement data be 50% or more of teacher evaluations. I'm not married to 25% or 50% or 75%, but I also know that if you attach some sort of merit based pay to achievement or to sound instruction or to parent surveys or to student surveys (yes, students surveys) you're going to have a better system. There is no incentive other than pure intrinsic motivation for mediocre teachers to get better. There's no incentive for teacher's to teach in ways that are out of their comfort zone. So why change? Let me tell you from someone who knows. They don't.

From the article:

Teaching is an incredibly complex art, and prescribing this high a percentage in terms of one area . . . undervalues teachers," said Doug Prouty, president of the Montgomery County Education Association. He said the regulations might jeopardize the county's peer-review evaluation system, which uses observations, test scores and other factors to determine how well teachers are doing.

Wrong. You can keep your peer review if you simply choose to revamp what you've already got. And what undervalues teachers, is having teachers get paid based on whether they show up for work, and for how many years they keep doing it, rather than whether they deliver a high quality product. Every day an ineffective teacher remains in their job is an insult to the teachers who work hard every day to be good at what they do.

Teacher evaluations to be 50% student data?

Looks like Nancy Grasmick is acting unilaterally to make student growth 50% of teacher evaluations rather than simply a "significant" portion, as required by the new state law. Interesting, because MCPS and the MCEA seemed to "slap five" after the Maryland state law was passed, arguing that they've already got it covered. It seems this is the states's shot off the bow of that celebration, and will force MCPS to go back to the drawing board.

If this is the state's way of calling out MCPS, then I'm all for it. It's time MCPS and MCEA engage in real meaningful reform that incentivizes the teaching profession. Come up with a system that rewards teachers for doing their job well. Reward teachers who work hard, not those who just get by. There is room to create this reform, even within or with additions to the current PGS and PAR system, but only if they engage the process. MCPS should lead and initiate like places such as New Haven, Connecticut are already doing. The alternative is to continue to make arguments for the status quo. Figure out how teachers can track their performance using a value-added approach to student performance. Figure out how to do the same for administrators who could potentially have more power under new system. It's high time we improved the profession once and for all.

A hopeful story

This story from the LA times is optimistic about changes to the seniority system. But we must go further than changing last hired, first fired. Pay scales, based solely on the length of time served and nothing else, need serious reevaluaion. More on this.