I am re-reading Richard Kahlenberg’s 2007 book about Albert Shanker, Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battle Over Schools, Unions, Race, and Democracy. It’s a fascinating read about one of the most influential educators and union leaders of our time.
Shanker
Shanker recognized that teachers needed to move beyond action on collective bargaining because it made teachers look as though “we are acting only in our own self-interest, wanting better salaries and smaller class sizes so our lives can be made easier. That image is standing in the way of our achieving professional status, for not only must we act on behalf of our clients, we must be perceived as acting that way.”
In other words, “take a step beyond collective bargaining to improve education.”
Shanker defined a professional teacher as: “someone who receives a liberal arts education, then specialized training, and then must pass a rigorous exam before beginning to practice. She participates in an internship, is guided by mentors, and participates in reviewing the performance of colleagues. [A] reciprocal set of rights—greater autonomy and higher compensation—comes once these professional responsibilities are met.”
Based on this notion of a “new professionalism,” Shanker pushed for Peer Assistance and Review or PAR. It was started in Toledo over 25 years ago. In PAR, the local teacher’s union and administrators jointly manage a program to improve teacher quality by having expert teachers mentor and evaluate (my emphasis added) their peers.
PAR has been shown to help beginning teachers succeed and increase retention; it helps ineffective teachers improve or to dismiss them without undue delay and cost. PAR can build a stronger teaching force and help to promote a culture focusing on sound teaching practices.
I am currently working with our association and talking to our district administrators to look at implementing PAR. The hang-up, and the reason I added emphasis to evaluate, is that current law does not allow a teacher to evaluate a colleague — this can only be done by an administrator.
This is an example of dated legislation that needs to be re-evaluated if we are to make some headway towards education reform. Hopefully, we have some legislators willing to take this on.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Mark,
Fascinating post. Is it the law, or is this part of collective bargaining? Also, I assume that this evaluation could be informal (if a teacher asks another teacher to observe and make suggestions, I assume that is not prohibited) — is it the use of the evaluation as part of the District’s formal process that is forbidden?
Alexander,
it is my understanding, through our district’s superintendent (a lawyer), that it is law.
Informal evaluations take place in our school–it is part of our professional learning community.
Evaluations used as a contingency of employment have to be made by an administrator.
It is the law. My sense is that if it were just a matter of contract, we would have it by now. The only local I have any direct knowledge of is DCTA. They’ve been interested in PAR for a number of years and have worked with administration and Board (including traveling to see it in action) to formulate a plan. I don’t know what the state of that plan is.
I know of three ways to get PAR going now. First, the law says that a person holding an administrators license makes the sign off and takes responsibility for an evaluation but I know of no restriction on the data sources a principal can use in making a decision. Peer input could be one of those data sources.
Math Science Leadership Academy, the teacher led school proposed and led by DCTA members, has negotiated a situation that allows them to use peer evaluation in a more comprehensive way.
Finally, using the Innovation Schools Act, a school with a sufficient number of teachers in support of the move could apply for a waiver of the law if they have a well crafted replacement approach.
I expect to see the law changed soon (or I guess a commission funded by gifts to study changing the law would be the more popular first step these days) since evaluation is a HUGE part of the teacher effectiveness conversation swirling around R2T, Gates grants, etc. In fact, the conversation that should include this detail is underway in Colorado.
Assuming the PAR process is at least in part monitored by administration, could not a district choose to utilize PAR and have an administrator approve and sign the resulting evaluation documents, thereby conforming to law? Would this defeat the purpose of PAR? Would such a model indeed conform to law? Does the administrator have to be a direct supervisor, or could s/he be a district-level supervisor with administrative credentials?
Jon Stewart’s routine about the Texas school board inspired some questions relevant to the above. Let me see if I got this straight:
Teachers must be evaluated by licensed administrators.
Administrators must be licensed and evaluated by other licensed administrators.
Superintendents do not need to be licensed, but they do need a license in order to evaluate other administrators.
Local school boards evaluate superintendents, but do not need a license to do so.
Do state school boards have any qualifications other than age and residency?
I’m not arguing against democratic processes, but does something seem a tad bit topsy-turvy here?
I’ve looked into this a little, and I can’t find any reference to actual legislation. Do either of you have a statute? Or is this just urban education legend?
I think it is in 22-9-106
Under revised statutes 22-9-106
(4) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (4), no person shall be responsible for the evaluation of licensed personnel unless such person has a principal or administrator license issued pursuant to article 60.5 of this title and has received education and training in evaluation skills approved by the department of education that will enable him or her to make fair, professional, and credible evaluations of the personnel whom he or she is responsible for evaluating. No person shall be issued a principal or administrator license or have a principal or administrator license renewed unless the state board determines that such person has received education and training approved by the department of education.