Schools for Tomorrow Blog

The next three days likely will comprise a critical moment in the showdown over the future of ProComp and education reform in Denver, as mediation takes place between DPS and DCTA to settle the disputed contract.

As Alexander Ooms skillfully pointed out, the natural and traditional advantage in these types of bargaining situations goes to the union. But the leadership of DPS may not be your typical school district leadership, and in some ways they have pushed DCTA back on its heels in the public relations battle. (Of course, they owe more than a little thanks to the teachers on the ground who are fed up with the union’s position.)

Yet anyone who doubts the ability of union leaders to overcome their tough situation and manipulate events to their advantage should think again. Whether or not DCTA officials can regain public momentum in these negotiations hinges on the first and primary piece of their plan, as they rally members to persuade parents to “Stand With Us” before and after school tomorrow.

Hey, at least they’re not foolish enough to make things happen during the school day, when you know, students should be learning. And kudos to the union as well for not taking a second stab at the “Doughnut Diplomacy” strategy (though it sure sounds tasty), though the “milk-through-the-nose” silly radio ad strategy has grown tiresome.

By the time the major newspapers hit the stands on Thursday, we should have a decent idea how well the DCTA’s political theater has played. My best hopes aside, it appears that nothing short of serious public shame will get either side to back down at this point.

For the sake of the kids and the peace of the city, it would be best that the union does not opt for a strike—especially during the Democratic National Convention. Students need teachers in the classroom, and besides, I’m not sure what sort of angry response might be unleashed if picketing teachers stole some of the spotlight from folks like these.
 

In my introductory blog, I wrote that I wanted to investigate/examine/interrogate the notion of teacher as professional. I wrote that teachers need to view themselves as professionals and that society needs to treat teachers as professionals, as opposed to treating teachers as well-intentioned “Mother Teresas,” fighting the good fight.

One way to judge whether or not teachers are treated and act like professionals is to compare teachers to other “professionals.” In 2005, the Finance Project, an organization that looks to “support decision-making that produces good results for children, families, and communities,” published a report that compared education to six other fields. The report, titled Preparing and Training Professionals: Comparing Education to Six Other Fields compares professional development in education to six other professions: law, accounting, architecture, nursing, firefighting and law enforcement.

Since we know that teacher quality is the most critical factor in improving student achievement, professional development of teachers is crucial. So how does education stack up as far as professional development?

In comparing preparation programs, all of the other professions had “greater consistency than education in standards across states.” Education, as opposed to the other professions, has no national standards, which, the report says, would “enable preparation programs to better compare their work to that of their peers and to measure progress towards established goals.”

Most of the other professions require practitioners to pass national exams before practicing. The report goes on to compare education to those other professions in six categories. But let’s stop at the issue of national standards.

Accountants, architects, and nurses must pass a single national exam. Lawyers must pass state bar exams, which employ a national or multi-state component.

Why no national exam for teachers? The major stumbling block to a national standard exam for teachers is disagreement around what the standards would entail. Why is it so difficult to come to consensus around the issue of teacher standards? Other professions do it. Does the resistance come from within the ranks of teachers and teacher unions (although the AFT is way ahead of the NEA on proposing teacher standards)? Do states get in the way here? Are they concerned with losing their autonomy? What about society in general? Is there reluctance by society in viewing their children’s teachers as professionals? What do you think?

Hot of the press, this new report from the A-Plus Finance and facilities Sub-committee validates what many people have been saying for a while now: ProComp needs to be reconfigured to pay newer teachers more and to provide meaningful incentives, rather than almost exclusively salary-building components. Read a full story on the report, on the Educaton News Colorado website, by clicking  here.

It looks as if Karl Rove has a new job when not working for Fox.  Check out the text of the latest radio ads playing in Denver advocating the Denver Classroom Teachers Association’s position in the contract-talks spat over ProComp.

Denver public school district officials are trying to change the nationally acclaimed performance-based pay system for Denver teachers Their proposed changes would remove incentives for experienced teachers, create quotas, and reduce accountability.
 
Call the school board and tell them to keep reform moving forward.
 
We need to attract and retain qualified teachers for Denver’s children.
 
Paid for by the Denver Classroom Teachers Association
 
Making public schools great for every child.

Not a good sign that the Denver Classroom Teachers Association and Denver Public Schools keep taking shots at each other publicly. This latest letter from DCTA prez Kim Ursetta, posted on her blog, has an unmistakably angry tone. 

And Kim, you get only a "partially proficient" in spelling. You misspelled the superintendent’s last name throughout your letter.

Is the AFT’s new president Randi Weingarten really serious about her social welfare vision for education, or is she just giving us all a big head fake to take our eyes off reforms that really need to happen? It’s a question worth asking. From Education Week, via the blog Kitchen Table Math:

In her speech, the new president also called for a federal law that promotes community schools to serve needy children that provide all the services and activities they and their families need.

“Imagine schools that are open all day and offer after-school and evening recreational activities and homework assistance … and suppose the schools included child care and dental, medical and counseling clinics, or other services the community needs,” Ms. Weingarten said. “For example, they might offer neighborhood residents English language instruction, GED programs, or legal assistance.”

The fundamental problem with this “broader, bolder approach” is exactly the one pointed out by Matthew Ladner in his guest post on Jay Greene’s blog. Though I probably wouldn’t use the tongue-in-cheek “Cheech and Chong” analogy, Ladner’s analysis is spot-on:

Personally, I’m trying to imagine a system of public schools that could teach 4th grade kids how to read after spending $40,000 or more on their education. In 2007, 34% of American public school 4th graders scored below basic in reading on the NAEP. If we can’t trust schools to teach kids how to read, just why would we want them trying to fix our teeth or attempting to resolve our legal issues?

The approach touted by Weingarten, the Economic Policy Institute, et al is not only fraught with tenuous assumptions that should have been dispelled after The Great Society experiment, but also would distract schools from their primary purpose. Do KIPP-operated schools and others like West Denver Prep succeed because they try to be all things to their families or because they focus like a laser beam on the things that matter? Yes, the latter.

A strong education grounded in the ability to read and understand math proficiently is what will give the poor and underprivileged the tools to break free from chronic dependency. Randi Weingarten may want a nanny government to perpetuate dependency among certain classes, but individuals and our society will be better off with greater breadth and depth of knowledge. They will be worse off under centralized, government-run welfare services. Let’s promote constructive compassion through families, communities, churches, and private charities, and keep our schools from being further afflicted by the destructive tendencies of government bureaucracy.

The approach? It may be broad, it may be bold, but it’s also—at best—hopelessly naïve. Let’s look for ways to beat the odds, not to compound them. Then again, maybe Randi Weingarten has succeeded in momentarily distracting one old Colorado codger from the primary focus of education reform.

Erase any doubts about how high the stakes are in the current ProComp-fueled bargaining impasse between Denver Public Schools and the Denver Classroom Teacher Association. The two sides are frantically jockeying for position in advance of mediation sessions scheduled for later this month. DCTA President Kim Ursetta has posted a slideshow detailing the union’s poisiton on her blog, and DPS Supt. Michael Bennet yesterday sent this missive to DPS employees.

You’d think with millions of dollars on the table, the two parties to the disagreement could quickly come to terms. But as stories here, here and here point out, this is a fight over substantive stuff, and neither side appears inclined to give ground. I’d bet heavily against a strike, especially with the DNC carnival heading our way. But stranger things have happened. 

Watching the continued dispute between DPS and DCTA over ProComp and other issues, and based on my somewhat cursory knowledge of collective bargaining agreements, I think teacher’s unions are clearly far better negotiators than districts. If I had to choose one side to represent me in a negotiation, I would pick the union, hands down. I surmise part of the reason for this success is the following:

-> Union leadership have been members for decades and are deeply versed in the issues; the average tenure of an urban district superintendent is under three years;
-> Unions are very focused and consistent in their demands (wages, job protections); districts argue for a variety of priorities that shift widely over time. The former builds on previous negotiations, the latter does not;
-> Unions have generally done a good job with public relations (everyone knows a teacher); districts are usually highly unpopular bureaucracies. Pressure to settle is often more on districts;
-> Unions negotiate for the long term; districts negotiate for the remaining term of the superintendent (see also #1);
-> District superintendents usually aspire to some higher office and thus have more to lose if there is no agreement than unions. It is hard to accelerate a political career if you can be held responsible for a highly unpopular strike;

On ProComp, the worst DCTA will do is have 10% of ProComp dollars paid as a bonus and not as salary. That tells me they have - in the broader context - won this negotiation already. If you were the district, would it be worth it to dig in and risk a strike for the, ahem, “victory” of 90% salary building?

What are other reasons? Or would someone care to argue that negotiations have more evenly distributed resources?