2013 A+ Schools - Keep Great Teachers Report
1/12/14 Post-Gazette - Teacher evaluation fight may prove costly
2/17/14 Post-Gazette - Letter to the Editor - Sharene Shealey, Former School Board President
2/17/14 KDKA TV - Teachers Union Opposes $40 Mil Grant's New Evaluation System
2/17/14 WESA.fm - Black Leaders Come Out in Support of Pittsburgh's Teacher Evaluation System
2/17/14 Post-Gazette - African-American leaders come out in favor of change in Pittsburgh Public Schools teacher evaluations
Two completely separate events came together to create this perfect storm. The first event occurred in 2009 when the District, in partnership with the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers (PFT), received a $40 million grant from the Gates Foundation to jointly create a quality teacher evaluation and support program. The second event occurred last year when the District had to lay off 285 teachers due to decreasing enrollment and revenue. The question was who would get laid off. This created a huge media fight that involved community groups, local foundations, the mayor, the teacher's union, parents and students. Two fundamental questions surfaced.
1. Could the District and Union agree on a methodology to evaluate teacher quality and effectiveness?
2. How should the District lay off teachers - based on seniority or on quality and effectiveness?
Let's start with Teacher Evaluation. The practice of teacher evaluation has been the same for decades in Pennsylvania. The Principal of the school (or Assistant Principal) is certified to observe teachers and evaluate their performance. It is the principal's responsibility to make sure every teacher is observed at least once a year; new teachers should be observed at least twice a year. The principal provides feedback on the observation and the teacher is given either a satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating at the end of the year. Two straight years of unsatisfactory ratings and a teacher can be dismissed from his/her job. In practice, it is not unusual for many teachers to not have an observation during the school year. And it is a rare occurrence for a teacher to lose their job due to unsatisfactory ratings.
This traditional method of evaluation was changed by the state a few years ago. Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, the new Pennsylvania school regulations required Districts to evaluate teachers using classroom observation (50%) and student outcomes (50%). In this regard, the Pittsburgh Public Schools was far ahead of the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE). Since the District had been working with the PFT on a new evaluation plan since 2009, a plan was already in place. And the plan was approved by PDE. Here, from an article in the August 13, 2013 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, is an update on the new evaluation plan.
In Pittsburgh, the observation half comes via Research-based Inclusive System of Evaluation (RISE), which is aimed at improving both the way principals observe teachers and providing opportunities for professional growth. Other pieces are the district's own valued-added measurements aimed at showing how much learning a student has gained in a year based on tests, student surveys and building-level data.
While the new system takes effect in 2013-14, the district recently told teachers what their ratings would have been under the new system if it had been in effect in 2012-13 and provided specific ways for them to get help where they need it.
Overall, the district found that 85% of classroom teachers were performing proficient or above -- including 15.3% who were distinguished -- 5.3% in the "needs improvement" category and 9.3% failing. Under the 2012-13 system, 3% were rated unsatisfactory, the rest satisfactory.
The state has given Pittsburgh permission to operate its system differently than other districts in the state. Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers officials contend the district's standards appear to be tougher than those that will be faced in other districts.So here's what happened. Starting in 2009 the District and the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers worked together to develop a teacher evaluation system that measured teacher quality and effectiveness. Unfortunately, in July, 2012, the District decided it would have to lay off over 285 teachers due to lower enrollment. Since the District and the PFT had been working on a teacher evaluation plan for over two years, a broad range of community organizations petitioned the Board of Directors to not layoff based on seniority, but to layoff based on teacher effectiveness as measured by the new evaluation plan. However, when the issue of layoffs came up, the PFT defaulted to its contract with the District and stated that seniority was the method to be used in layoffs. Also, as noted in the article, the PFT began to backtrack on the evaluation criteria when they found out that using the new system, three times as many teachers (9.3%) were failing as compared with the previous system (3%).
The concept of Teacher Seniority was an outgrowth of a time, pre-1970s, when layoffs were decided by a single individual in a school district, not necessarily on the basis of quality of teaching, but often based on favoritism, nepotism, sexism, racism, cutting higher paying staff or other arbitrary criteria. In these instances there was no recourse for teachers who were laid off for inappropriate reasons. A key element of the first collective bargaining agreements was the concept of seniority as a non-judgmental, fair method for laying off staff. Both building seniority and system seniority was used to determine who could transfer to a new position, who could teach summer school and what classes you taught during the school year. Seniority is the preferred Union method for creating fairness. Consequently, teacher quality doesn't enter into a discussion of seniority.
Since the PFT and the Board had worked closely on the new evaluation system, one might suggest that the issue of arbitrary layoffs due to the whim of the head of HR would not come into play. Although the PFT agreed to develop a plan for the evaluation of quality in teaching, they demanded that seniority, not quality should be the basis for the layoffs (as stated in their contract.) As an old union member I understand their distrust. Would the district attempt to get rid of higher salaried teachers under the guise of layoffs based on teacher effectiveness? In the past, I could imagine that happening. However they had $40 million dollars and 4 years to figure this problem out. The Gates Foundation was watching. The Pittsburgh community was watching. The District thought they had a new evaluation plan that the PFT helped develop. The Union stated that the plan was more rigorous than other Districts and it set the bar too high. And they never discussed any connection between the evaluation plan and seniority. The District was naive. The Union was cynical. It begs the question of whether either or both sides were disingenuous when they agreed to work on a new evaluation plan.
Here's a suggestion. If the District and the Union were moving towards a more cooperative relationship, or actually saw themselves as partners in an endeavor to create higher achievement for all students, they would look for a middle ground. Using the District/Union evaluation methodology just developed, 15% of the teachers were ranked as failing or in need of improvement. If the District has to layoff teachers due to restructuring, they should start by laying off those teachers who are not proficient (the 15%). Once that group of teachers is furloughed, seniority could be used for the rest of the layoffs. Compromise, a new paradigm, a focus on the students! The problem is that without being negotiated, and codified in the District/Union contract, there would have been an insurrection in the union membership.
In this day and age, with much greater attention and legal recourse regarding workplace discrimination, seniority has outlived its value. To be quite honest, when I was teaching and a member of the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers, most of us would have been thrilled if the incompetent teachers were removed. They reflected poorly on the profession and did great damage in the classroom. Ultimately, every decision made should be focused on the best option for our students. As long as there is an adversarial relationship between the Union and the District there will be no progress.
