A Teacher Guide to Peer Review

Hide Document

-SPECIAL EDITION


.......-..


.. ....... .


,A Teacher Guide to Peer Review


, This year, UILA members, will be discussing and debating a proposal, not yetfinalized. from the l!1'LA Accountaqility
, Committee to establish a peer assistance and peer review program. Unlike peer assistance, peer review -permitting

teachers to evaluate ot~r teachers -is very controversial, as evidenced by the sharp debate at last year's National
, Education Association, Representative Assembly. This special edition of A Second Opinion is a contribution to that
", discussIon. In case you didn '/ see It, we are reprinting an article critical ofpeer review which appeared In a June issue
"ofUnited Teacher, as well as an opinion piece ofour own.

, REPRlNT,' United Teacher, June 19,1998

Peer Assistance -Yes!

, '

Peer Review -No!

After a discussIon period on "professional accountability,"
UTLA members will be asked to vote on a peer
review program that would involve teachers in assisting
and ultimately evaluating other teachers, possibly leading
to their dismissaLAs UTLA activists, we wholeheartedly
support the creation of a comprehensive peer assistance

, (or coaching) program within LAUSD. However, we
adamantly oppose peer review programs that could put
teachers in the position of firing or recommending the
fi,ring ofteachers.

When we vote, we should only support a peer assistance
program in which, without exception, all interactions
between teacher andconsulting teacher are strictly
confidential and non-evaluative.

New teachers and many veteran teachers, as well,
would greatly benefit from an adequately funded and
staffed peer assistance program. Teaching is an isolating
activity. Student teaching and education theory courses do
not prepare teachers sufficiently for what they will experience
in the classr90m, causing so many new teachers to
leave the profession after a few years.

While no panacea, some kind of "on the job training" ,
component is needed which would eventually meet the'
following goals:

• All first and second year teachers, as well as veteran
teachers on a volunteer basis, would participate in the
Peer Assistance program.
• Veteran teachers receiving poor evaluations from
administration would be especially encouraged to partici-pate
in a peer assistance program. Perhaps the contract
should require that a teacher given an "unsat" or who is
"on notice" be given an opportunity to receive peer assistance
for an extended period of time before any action is
~enon hislher job status.
• Consultinglmentoring teachers would be full-time,
out-of-classroom positions for no more than three consecutive
years and would be subject to a rigorous selection,
training, and'accountability process.
• Reasonable teacher/consulting teacher ratios should
be established to ,allow for substantive and timely interac,
tion.
Unlike peer assistance, which is supportive and nonthreatening,
peer review programs are intimidating and
potentially punitive. In most of these programs, poorly
performing teachers are singled out by administrators or


(Owr)

A Second Opinion Viewpoint

Why UTIA Members Should
Oppose Peer Review

By JOEL JORDAN, City of Angels HS, House of Reps
E-mail: joeljordan@earthlink.net '

UTLA members should pay close attention' ii'the
continuing debate over peer assistance and peer review,
especially as it relates to the issue of"accountability." To
begin with, peer assistance and peer review are two .very
different things, even though they are often discussed in
the same breath. Peer assistance involves coaching or
mentoring new, and in some cases veteran teachers, most
effectively in complete confidentiality. Given the inadequacies
of the District's current mentor teacher program,
we very much favor a well-funded peer assistance program
which can, at the very least, offer assistance to all
new teachers.

Peer review programs, on the other hand, put teachers
in the position of evaluating other teachers, including
recommending that they be fired. A Second Opin'ion
strongly recommends that UTLA members vote against
any program that includes peer review. Putting teachers in
the position of firing other teachers compromises the
proper role of our union, which is to defend, not punish,
bargaining unit membe.rs. George Woods, chairperson of
the UTLA Accountability Committee that is writing the
peer review proposal mentioned by Higuchi, admits as
much in a receht United Teacher commentary. Referring
to the urban I~als around the country that have adopted
peer review programs, he points out that " ... they have

. (Owr)

We'd like to hear your views.
A Second Opinion invites you to a


Leadership Conference
Get Together


Saturday, Sept. 12

4PM

Date Palm Suite


Why unA Members Should Oppose

~eer Review

.... (Co;,lIf1wdjrom pap I)

· .. added contract language that guaran~
tees due process.••," strongly suggesting
. that peer review erodes the con


tract. .
George Woods goes on to claim that
"The old paradigm that is wrapped in
the argument 'We don't hire 'em, so
we shouldn't fire 'em' simply does not

work any longer." Yet, he doesn't tell
us why it doesn't work. In fact, the
paradigm makes perfect sense. From a
union point of view, the only justification
for workers being in the position
offiring other workers is if they have
control over the craft or profession,
including hiring. Do we? Of course
not. Teachers are under the domination
of our employers -the education bureaucracy,
the school board, and the
legislature -with no control over training,
hiring, pay, curriculum, class size,
the condition of our students, or anything
.else. Under these conditions, why
would we' want to take responsibility
for evaluating the performance of our
· colleagues?The whole thing is a set up
.. to allow us to be our own executioners,

putting a few teachers in the position
of doing the work of administrators.
We all know what a joke the Stull
evaluation is. Instead let's demand
that the District be "accountable" to
develop a better evaluation program
which gives teachers more feedback
and guards against arbitraIy, vindictive
principals.

So why do more and more teacher
union leaders propose peer review
programs? Leaving aside all rhetoric
about improving our profession, they
are mainly concerned about combating
attacks on public education by
Conservative forces that manipulate
the public's genuine concern over the
state of our schools. As George
Woods hopes out loud, "[peer review
may] be a small step in convincing
the critics of public education that we
are serious about improving the instruction
all our children receive."
The problem is that peer review will
do nothing to improve teacher performance.
In fact, it will actually detract
from our ability to improve public
schools by fostering the illusion that

bad teachers are the main problem,
'thereby giving further ammunition to
the Right in its attacks on teachers
and public education. Instead, UTLA
should focus on the key factors affecting
instruction, such as poor
teacher training, high student/teacher
ratios, inadequate resources, noncompetitive
teacher salaries, and student
poverty. In the final analysis, the
quality of teaching and learning will
only improve if these factors are ad~
dressed. And that can only be accomplished
with the persistent pressure
of strong, progressive teacher unions
and their allies. Anything, like peer
review, which weakens the solidarity
of our union, should therefore be
opposed. As for the honest critics of
public education, it is our responsibility
as teachers to educate the public
about the conditions under which
we work and to ask them to join with
us in changing them.

Meanwhile, we should not accept
peer review just because a few other
urban locals around the country have'
done so, most likely under similar
public pf.essure. Most urban locals do ':'.
not have peer review. We should
consider the issue on its own merits .

-.......... -~..


......

....... '-........


we should urge UTLA to develop a
Peer Assistance'-Yes! Peer Review -No! ,comprehensive peer assistance program
as part ofour contract.

· (Coflllnu.rljromj/rJI pag.) Some advocates of peer review argue
teacher union reps and are placed in the that having teachers, instead of princiSubmitted
by:
peer review program. Teachers under pals, evaluate other teachers, creates John Latsko
review know from the beginning that ''teacher empowerment." On the conLarry
Abbott Jesus Martinez
they could lose their jobs as a result of trary, we believe that such Susana Betancourt Gloria Moya
the process. Instead ofpromoting help"
empowerment" lets others off the hook. Alex Caputo-Pearl Leigh AM 'Orr

BOMie Coleman Joshua Pechthalt

ful .dialogue, peer review inhibits honIt
takes responsibility offthe shoulders of

Iris Edinger Michael Rosner

est communication between evaluator university professors, student-teacher co


Karen Ehrlich Carl Stilwell

and evaluatee. ordinators, employing administrators,

Betty Forrester Bob Tanner

MO$t important, putting teachers in and supervising principals, who had op


Bohdan Futala Roselva Ungar

the position ottiring other teachers sets portunities to reject individuals who

Elsa Jimenez Brian Wallace

up an "us v. them"dyhamic, underminshould
not have entered the profession.

Joel Jordan Steve Zimmer

ing teacher solidarity at a time'when it Teachers will only be truly empowered

is most needed to .combat the threat of
vouchers, District break-up, and other
attacks on public education; Helping
principals to evaluate and possibly discipline
our colleagues -even when
teachers chQose to be evaluated by
other teachers -blurs the distinction
between teachers and administrators

· and sets the stage for divisiveness
within our union. Further, it could
·deprive the teacher ofdue process since
the union is a party to a dismissal. ,

Nor Is peer review an answer to the

· teacher-bashing going on in response to
low student test· scores. Rather, it will
actually contribute to such scapegoatingby
fostering the appearance that
individual teachers are primarily to
blame for poorly achieving schools,
rather than poverty, lack of funding for
education, etc. A peer assistance program,
on the other hand, would
strengthen teacher unity as well as improve
teacher performance.

when our working conditions improve
enough to facilitate the daily, intimate
peer assistance so essential to educational
quality.

We are debating peer review only
because teacher union leaders have come
under increasing pressure from conservative,
anti-union forces to discipline our
own ranks. As a result, teachers are being
asked to collaborate with management in
a way that actually exacerbates the problem.
Rather than conceding to these
forces, we can begin to re-capture the
high ground in the debate over educational
quality by publicly advocating (I)
peer assistance programs, without peer
review, (2) credentialing programs more
relevant to the day-to-day teaching experience,
and (3) a renewed focus on increasing
educational funding and reducing
poverty.

When UTLA members vote on this
issue, we urge you to reject any proposal
with a peer ,review component. Rather,

You Should Get

A'Second Opinion

This newsletter is published by'
UTLA activists who believe that our
union and public education are
strengthened when UTLA is organized,
mobilized, and visible. We believe that.
good salaries must be combined with
real school reform that lowers class
size, provides less crowded schools,
and brings about a more rigorous and
meaningful curriculum. We support the
democratization ofeducation and equal
access to all levels of learning for all
our students.

If you would like to help with distribution,
make a contribution, or just express
your opinion, call (213) 296-2109
or e-mail usat:joshpecht@aol.com.
Write checks to: SCANlNew Direction,
3784 Sutro Ave" L.A. 90018.



Hide Document