The communication below is from NSEA to the to NSD Board Directors. It is in response to questions and discussion about ineffective teachers that have been sent recently to NSEA. We wanted you to see the information that we passed on to the board.
Tim
********
Dear Northshore School Board Member,In light of recent discussions in Olympia and in the press about terminating ineffective teachers, here is info for you on the process and practice for terminating ineffective teachers in Northshore.
Northshore does not have a lot of "bad teachers". It does have some, as any organization of a large size would have employees who are not competent to do their work.
Northshore EA (NSEA) has counseled out about 6 teachers since August. All of these teachers would have faced action by the Human Resources (HR) Dept had they not resigned---either discipline or eventual probation. We encouraged them to resign after carefully reviewing each of their situations. We felt that Northshore HR was acting appropriately. We will not represent a member in an arbitration or hearing if they should not continue working--based on the facts. (If you want specific info about these employees, please consult with HR Exec. Dir. Laurie Ferwerda. Our conversations with these employees were confidential.)
Typically, we counsel out a handful of teachers each year. When I worked in Seattle for SEA, I can tell you that I personally counseled out more teachers than all of the Superintendents and HR Directors combined in the 12 years I was there. What we do in Northshore is pretty typical of the Associations in Washington.
NSD HR Exec. Director Laurie Ferwerda recently informed us that NSD has not had a need to do a non-renewal hearing in the last 14 years. And the one 14 years ago was canceled after the Assn successfully encouraged the teacher to resign immediately before the hearing.
Those who think there is a big problem with an abundance of "bad teachers" do not understand what is happening in our schools, and how to improve them.
* Focusing on "bad teachers" is not going to yield a huge increase in quality. The way to generate a huge increase in quality is to focus on the overwhelming proportion of the teachers in the "middle"---solid teachers who want to grow and do a great job for their students--and provide them with the opportunities to improve that they seek: professional development; time for observing others and being observed by peers and getting feedback; time to work together to prepare lessons based on data-supported methods; mentoring; etc. 99% of teachers are motivated to do anything they can to teach better. They don't need bigger carrots or sticks; they need these opportunities. They WANT these opportunities. These are things we negotiate over. Teachers need time to do this important work.
* The current process for removing "bad" teachers DOES work--but only for that. The current eval process does NOT work to create growth in quality for most teachers. Hopefully, the new eval process we will be creating with the administration over the next 2 years will work better. But it will do so only if it is used for that purpose---not simply for labeling and sorting teachers. To work, it needs supports such as those described above--the time and opportunities to improve quality.
* Those who blame the Assn don't understand the process, or what kind of organization we are. They do not understand unions---and probably don't want to.
Assns and unions represent the COLLECTIVE interests of our members. Our members are primarily interested in teaching kids well, and creating great schools. They are also interested in being treated fairly, making an adequate living, and playing a professional role--sharing in decisions--in their schools and districts.
Our members are not interested in protecting the jobs of their ineffective colleagues. They have to teach the students of these teachers; they have to work with other teachers in dept and grade level teams. It is frustrating and demoralizing to work with people who don't pull their weight; it makes their work harder, and doesn't further their goals of teaching kids well.
Thus, the Assn does NOT have an interest in keeping ineffective teachers on the job. Our interest is in ensuring that all teachers (including those who need to improve) are treated with respect; that they get a reasonable opportunity to improve; and that if they do not improve, that reasonable negotiated or statutory processes (the opportunity for a third party hearing, if needed) to remove them are utilized. This should not be controversial. Somehow, it works in much of the world, including top education countries like Finland, where all teachers are in unions.
Furthermore, a union leader who spends union resources (time and funds) trying to keep incompetent employees employed would face serious problems getting re-elected. It's simply not what the membership supports. And it's not what we support.
The huge focus on "bad teachers" by the corporate foundation-backed "reformers" is, we think, mainly a wedge in the attack on unions and public education. "Bad Teachers" are to public education what "Welfare Queens" were to the safety net. It's an attempt to discredit public education and education unions, just as Ronald Reagan discredited welfare and the safety net, which has been all but eliminated. There is just enough of a grain of truth in it to make it sound plausible.
NSEA supports and wants to improve the quality of instruction in our schools. That’s not a focus on “bad teachers.” That’s about improving our schools.
Here is the specific current process for identifying, assisting, and, if necessary, terminating incompetent teachers in Northshore:
1. Evaluation by the Principal using the State criteria. Essentially a principal must observe an employee at least twice for a minimum of 30 minutes each time, and write an observation report for each of the 2 observations. There are no caps on the number of observations or a time limit on their length. A Principal exercises their judgment and give an employee a “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory”. 60 minutes of observation is not onerous.
2. If an employee gets an Unsatisfactory from their Principal, they are put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). This Plan identifies their shortcomings, describes what they need to do to improve, and what help they will get. The administration contracts with a teacher or retired principal to assist them. NSEA is involved in the creation of the specific Plan to ensure that the plan is reasonable and specific, that the employee understands what they need to do, and that they get help. The PIP is generally rigorous and clear, and employees improve with the help they get. If they do not improve, the Association often encourages employees to consider other options at this point.
3. If the employee does not improve, and is evaluated Unsatisfactory by the Principal at the end of the Plan, the Principal may put them on Probation. This is for a period of 60 school days (about 3 months). It is a specific plan, much like a PIP. The District will utilize a second evaluator in addition to the Principal. An evaluator must meet with the employee at least twice monthly (for a minimum of 60 work days--about 3 months) to supervise and make a written record of the employee’s progress or lack of it. The Association will hire an impartial outside observer to help the employee. If this observer informs us, at the end of the probation, that the employee is not competent, the Association takes the matter no further. If the Association's observer believes that the employee has not been evaluated fairly, we will consider contesting a non-renewal (termination). (That has not happened in Northshore for at least 14 years.)
4. After a minimum of 60 work days on probation, an employee who, in the opinion of the evaluators (and supported by the Superintendent) remains Unsatisfactory may be non-renewed (terminated at the end of the school year). The employee may take this decision to an impartial hearing officer. Very few non-renewals are contested in Washington. There was only one last year in the entire state, according to the WEA General Counsel. They are hardly ever overturned because the process basically works---for the limited purpose of terminating ineffective teachers. It is because the process has clear safeguards for fairness and an opportunity to improve, it generally works for this purpose.
Our members are looking forward to collaborating with the administration to create a new evaluation system, based on the frameworks in the State law passed in the last Session (HB 6696), that will hopefully support growth for ALL teachers.
No comments:
Post a Comment