Unions (Part 3) : Teacher Support, Protection, and School Reform Flexibility

Today we will reflect on two aspects of unions that are very important as it comes to how schools function, but that often are overlooked by outside observers. These two aspects are (1) support for teachers and (2) flexibility with school day, structure and management approaches.

Teaching is hard work. Between planning, managing student behavior, grading, contacting parents and administrative duties, teachers have many different "buckets" to tend to, and it takes a good deal of energy, hard work, talent and experience to effectively manage all these areas. For the average teacher (especially in their first few years) doing the job well means getting support, and the sad truth is that managers in the workplace don't always operate from this support framework, but instead act strictly as evaluator, delegator, or punisher. While this could thus open up a discussion for us about school leadership, let's instead look at how unions respond to this reality:

1) Unions protect workers from unreasonable or unfair management practices, giving the teacher room to learn, make mistakes, and grow without the unnecessary stress of unbearing supervisors.

2) Unions offer avenues for professional development that otherwise might not be accessible to teachers. For instance, unions offer generous course catalogs of credited and non-credited courses teachers can take to advance up a salary scale and maintain their licensing. These courses are low cost or cost free, and address critical needs for staff. Unions also protect teacher time, which gives them the opportunity to pursue areas of growth through fellowships, independent research, travel, and graduate study. 



These aspects of unions are important and should not be dismissed by critics. At the same time, these services do draw criticism. For instance, critics could respond by saying:


1. teachers need to be held accountable, and unions protect bad teachers
2. unions shouldn't be in the business of providing professional development--it's not their core function, so it shouldn't excuse unions from obstructing reform and improved schooling.
3. while some teachers might advance their practice with time off, others might not. 


So unions protect teachers, and that can be a good thing or a bad thing. Big surprise. What can we learn from this little exercise? Well, it clearly places the union between the teachers and the management. So if management is working for reform and teachers are lazy, unions are the enemy. But if management is incompetent or corrupt and teachers are hardworking and skilled, the union is the hero! Clearly, on the teacher side, we know that neither extreme is the truth. Perhaps we should look at a corollary issue--what does management in a school actually do? How does management interact with, or should it interact with, the union?


While politicians make the rules, unions are still instrumental in setting them and this is frequently sited as an obstacle to reform. School leaders find union reps to be a thorn in their side, disrespecting and subverting well-intentioned efforts, and calling out minor infractions of work rules that might be counter-productive in the first place. Leaders cannot manipulate their staff when a vigilant union rep is around, and this truth can go both ways for the students. With tight budgets, principals can't ask unionized teachers to stay late without paying them overtime, and a series of issues stem from just this one conundrum. Questions abound about what schools could be without unions, and charter schools are a laboratory testing these hypotheses. We ask: What could we do with a longer school day? Longer school year? More flexibility with staff assignments? More options for holding teachers accountable? 


With experience as both a unionized teacher and a non-unionized teacher, and through my observations of what is going on at other schools across the nation, here is my conclusion on this point about unions, teacher support, and flexible school rules. I'd argue that the union is not the problem--though it also does not contribute enough to the solution. Rules in schools are not set by unions, they are set by politicians who are accountable to voters and donors. The unions do have a voice and this voice is generally used to do what unions do--protect workers rights. I would argue that this is not such a blatant cost to the students, because protecting teacher time, privacy, and academic freedom actually serves the students in many ways. By contrast, having longer days (one of the most sought after goals of school reforms) is not a recipe for higher achievement by itself. Instead, higher achievement comes from this equation:


longer days+good curriculum+good teaching+good social support=higher student outcomes


Charters that produce better results with longer days often have better teachers, better leaders, smaller classes, excellent enrichment courses and STILL work hard to protect their teachers. Taking away unions might take away some of the bureaucratic headache associated with reform efforts, but it would not guarantee that all the building blocks for achievement are in place--it could just as easily lead to more burn-out for teachers and students as bad/desperate managers pressure the school to do more, but not better. 


With all that is said here in support of unions, I want to emphasize that I do not support tenure nor do I support union "protections" that run counter to sound research about good student learning. 

The Future of Unions (part 1)

Ok. One of the touchiest subjects in education. Here's my perspective, and being a charter school teacher I threw away my union membership 16 months ago, which may say more than anything else about what follows. In my view, unions are not the solution or the problem. The way the unions operate in our system today undeniably makes it hard to institute change. The most challenging aspect of the unions' influence comes down to tenure, and the way that tenure discourages teachers from innovating and improving upon their craft. Without any sense of being challenged when displaying laziness, a tenured teacher will only have intrinsic motivation to propel them. Given the emotional burdens teaching frequently causes, teachers need every form of motivation to ensure sustained commitment and effectiveness, and schools need to have more flexibility to remove teachers when they prove to lack in this area.

Thus, we begin this conversation about unions on the question of accountability. Teachers need to be held accountable for what they are asked to do, and more than anything else, having a demonstrable impact on student learning ought to be paramount in the way teachers are reviewed. Some combination of standardized tests, student portfolios, observations, and student/parent surveys could make up the bulk of teacher evaluations. However, the union routinely resists adopting such measures. The argument tends to revolve around what the exact measures should be, but in effect there is no system of fair evaluation in place. Unions should do more to welcome a system of accountability based on fair and transparent evaluations, with at least 50% of that evaluation centering on demonstrable and measurable student learning.

A system of accountability as just described makes up part of the incentive structure in which teachers work (or ought to). The incentives for teachers to perform well also include (a) teacher pay, (b) opportunities for professional growth and advancement, (c) opportunities for acknowledgement, recognition and praise, and (d) satisfaction related to the service of teaching itself. On points (b) and (c), the unions play a constructive role, offering courses for teacher development, protecting teacher time so they can learn, rest, and explore, and granting awards and presenting acknowledgements in union newspapers. The union has little to do with point (d) directly, and as it is now well known, the union plays a major role in the structuring of teacher pay (a). Let us look briefly at unions and pay.

The issue of merit pay has recently gotten a lot of press, and in a nutshell here's my view on pay and unions: (1) if it weren't for unions, average teacher pay would be lower, attracting, as a whole, less well qualified candidates (due to a higher degree of risk and cost associated with the profession). At the same time,  (2) so called "merit pay," which unions currently oppose, could definitely make a big difference in the field of education by increasing the reward for hard work and effectiveness. In essence, unions have both a negative and positive influence on one of the most important incentives--pay--for teachers. What then should be done? In my view, we should look very closely at what Washington DC attempted this year, in which teachers had the ability to vote to be on a salary scale or a merit pay system. This compromise could be the best solution yet considered.

The role of unions in education goes beyond accountability and incentives. In two early 2011 posts, I will look at other aspects of the union factor in education, in particular:

-support for teachers
-flexibility with school day, structure and management approaches
-areas of education relatively unaffected by unions
-Overall value of unions

Happy New Year!

Finally, a book I'd recommend looking at that considers many of these questions in the context of higher education:

Fundraising and Budget Control

Essential school programs should not need to fundraise to meet core costs, and budgeting needs to be decentralized from the main administrative office.

Ok, some background: I spent over 10 hours last weekend (following 10-20 hours of planning) running two fundraisers to help get my students to Spain in February. We netted less than $800. While I'm confident we will eventually raise the $25,000 we need to substantially reduce costs for our travelers, the burden on me as the group leader is grueling, and attending to my teaching duties as well as our travel management agenda makes the phrase "work-life balance" sound like a sick joke. We have two students who are especially struggling to make payments. A firmer commitment from my school at the outset would make our fundraising stakes less dramatic and would signal a willingness to build the program for the benefit of future student travel. However, this type of commitment would place our school in an over-extended financial position, and since we depend on undependable state government and foundation grants, the launching of innovative programs require a sisyphean effort.

In the 21st century and our globalized world, international travel programming is a fundamental need, yet schools seldom treat this aspect of education as anything other than a teacher's pet project, approved of by the administration but not underwritten financially. Whether it is travel, athletics, arts or engineering, "extra-curricular" activities are frequently the glue that bind kids to school and the inspiration that leads kids to their careers, yet they are treated as peripheral window-dressing by bureaucrats and administrators.

In order to improve our schools, departments and programs need to have independent budgets much like departments within local, state and federal government. Staff should be held accountable for how that money is spent as they exercise this unusual autonomy. School administrators are often overwhelmed with approval requests for purchasing everything from class sets of books to dry erase markers and projector light bulbs. This is inefficient for management and employees, as teacher and program leaders wait needlessly for supplies and management drowns in emails and paperwork.

The move to bring business leaders into education has not shown clear evidence of improved student achievement; however, there is no doubt that some expertise in organizational and financial management is sorely needed. Our kids need cleats, costumes and plane tickets; and school leaders need better ways to focus on strategy as opposed to micro-management.

Value Added Teacher Evaluation

In Tuesday's NYTimes, and article called "Formula to Grade Teachers' Skills Gains Acceptance, and Critics" calls attention to a new trend for teacher accountability that is taking place in various school districts across the US. This new trend involves using test data to determine how much a group of students has grown or improved between two standardized tests, and attributing a portion of these or all of this change to the teacher who taught them that year. This data can enable supervisors, districts and parents to get a new perspective on teacher effectiveness.

The biggest improvement this trend makes comes down to the fact that this "method can be more accurate for rating schools than the system now required by federal law, which compares test scores of succeeding classes, for instance this year’s fifth graders with last year’s fifth graders." This certainly seems like a more thoughtful approach to using test data to evaluate teachers, but there are still variables that are difficult to control, as the article describes:

"Millions of students change classes or schools each year, so teachers can be evaluated on the performance of students they have taught only briefly, after students’ records were linked to them in the fall.
In many schools, students receive instruction from multiple teachers, or from after-school tutors, making it difficult to attribute learning gains to a specific instructor. Another problem is known as the ceiling effect. Advanced students can score so highly one year that standardized state tests are not sensitive enough to measure their learning gains a year later."

Nevertheless, these difficulties should not blind us to the fact that value-added teacher evaluation makes a great deal of sense--we just need to control these variables, and make sure that evaluation involves a few other measures besides simply standardized test score data. What if we apply the value-added approach to student portfolios and school designed interim assessments, two of the student centered, results-oriented pieces of teacher evaluation that anti-data types lobby to be part of teacher evaluation?

Perhaps this calls up the bigger question of "How should teachers be evaluated?" Almost without question, teachers should have a transparent set of criteria they need to meet to be seen as "successful." What should the criteria include? Perhaps it ought to look something like this:

-Value added student scores: 20%

-Value added student portfolios: 20%

-Absolute student scores: 10%

-Student and parent survey data: 10%

-Teacher professionalism: 10%

-Teacher curriculum, unit, and lesson plan development: 10%

-Other contributions to school community, environment and programs: 20%

The Question of National Standards

Should the United States move towards national standards? A few weeks ago the NY Times reported that nearly every state in the nation had declared intentions to participate in the crafting and adoption of national standards, and many voices, from Arne Duncan to Randi Wiengarten, have expressed their support for the move. While some supporters qualify their support, including the aforementioned union leader (Wiengarten), over the past several years playmakers from all different dimensions of education have come to acknowledge the sense the US developing and adopting national standards. If the Europeans and Japanese do it, and they get better test scores, shouldn't we?

I support the development and adoption of national standards for most of the reasons commonly cited: uniform measures of accountability for students, teachers, and schools across the country; coherence of basic core skills and knowledge for all Americans; "economies of scale" in terms of developing instructional materials and curricula that can be transferable across state-lines; and feasibility of teachers to move without their experience loosing a its value due to considerable changes in content.

And then, the other shoe drops, the long expected "but." In our conversations about national standards, I sometimes hear opponents mention the loss of autonomy for schools and teachers (and states), and the related limitations national standards might place on local communities as they try to accommodate local challenges. These are valid concerns, and actually point to a larger issue, which could be converted to an opportunity: as we move toward national standards, we ought have a national conversation. If we as a nation are to adopt national standards, now is the time for people at all levels of society to speak up about what is important for the next generation to learn. How should schools look in the 21st century? What are the challenges that the next generation will have to solve? How can we impart them with the skills and knowledge to face these challenges and prevail?

I'm not hearing this conversation, and the fault for that is widespread. We should adopt national standards, but that should occur as we as a nation come to some kind of agreement about the manner and priorities our education system should embody. Inevitably, Americans will agree that some level of autonomy for schools and teachers should be maintained. Where we draw this line, however, (as well as many others), should emerge out of a vigor debate. So far, I'm still waiting to hear.