Peer Review Programs Catch Hold as Unions and Districts Work Together

Hide Document

EDUCATION WEEK


American Education's Newspaper ofRecord Volume XVII, Number 38 . June 3, 1998 © 1998 Editorial Projects in Education

Peer-Review Programs Catch Hold
As Unions, Districts Work Together


By Ann Bradley

Columbus, Ohio

T
T
he techniques Jennifer Bouknight
learned in education school didn't
work. Her 3rd and 4th graders were too
rowdy to sit at tables, rather than desks.
A hands-on science experiment turned
into "two-by-fours swinging around the
room." By December, she was in tears,
ready to quit.

But with help from a consulting teacher
assigned to her as part of an innovative
program here, Ms. Bouknight has survived
her first year of teaching at Heyl Elementary
School. Her mentor provided
encouragement, professional articles, and
seasoned advice on everything from organizing
reading groups to parent conferences
to classroom management.

"I could talk to her about anything," the
first-year teacher said recently. "She was
there for me when I needed her."

In the end, Ms. Bouknight received a
good evaluation from her consulting
teacher that will allow her to continue to
teach-a decision once left solely to principals.
Since the 1980s, teachers in a
handful of urban districts with peer-assistance
and -review programs have borne
this responsibility, helping new teachers
as well as veterans who are having problems.
In both cases, the consulting teachers
can recommend dismissal.

In the past year, the idea of peer review
has rocketed into the policy spotlight
amid a greater focus on accountability in
education. Bob Chase, the president of the
National Education Association, has embraced
it as a way for teachers to take
greater responsibility for school qualitywhat
he calls the "new unionism." Last
summer, delegates to the NEA'S convention
voted to drop their opposition to the practice,
which stands conventional unionism
on its head by giving teachers a role in
evaluation.

The American Federation of Teachers
has long supported peer review, although
relatively few of its affiliates have negotiated
such programs.

Last month, a conference here sponsored
by the Columbus Education Association-
an NEA affiliate that has operated
a peer-review program for 12 years-drew
more than 500 teachers and union staff
members from some 30 states. John
Grossman, the president of the CEA, joked
that he organized
the meeting in selfdefense
after being

RAISING

overwhelmed with
the STAKES inquiries from interested
educators.
Columbus leaders

An Occasional Series

were joined by officials
from three AFT affiliates-Toledo,
Ohio, which pioneered peer review in
1981, Cincinnati, and Rochester, N.Y.

The state of Ohio has appropriated $4.8
million over the past two years for grants
to districts interested in planning
or implementing peer review. Union leaders
in Columbus and Toledo are writing
sample contract language that could be
used in districts of various sizes.

''We've come along fast within NEA," said
Mr. Grossman, who defied his state and
national organizations in launching the
program in 1986. "Once that embrace
happens, it's a bear hug."

A Helping Hand

With the increased attention to peer review,
however, has come confusion over its purpose.
While the idea of teachers helping to dismiss
peers who don't measure up has caught hold,
the programs actually devote much more time
and resources to mentoring new teachers.

Peer review is about "helping people to
succeed," Mr. Chase said here in a speech
at the conference.

"To characterize peer assistance and review
as getting rid of bad teachers," he
cautioned, "is a gross misrepresentation of
what it's all about."

Indeed, the number of veteran teachers
referred to the programs for "intervention"
is typically very small.

Yet experts say peer review offers one
solution to a problem that has long vexed
school administrators and education poli


cymakers: how to identify and deal with
teachers who aren't performing to the levels
their students need or that higher
standards of teaching demand.

In Toledo, 52 experienced teachers out of
a pool of about 2,600 have been placed in
intervention over 16 years. All but 10
have left the classroom. About 10 percent
of Toledo's intern teachers are rejected for
a second year of teaching.

Since its inception 12 years ago, 178
teachers have entered the Columbus district's
intervention program, out of a
teaching force of 4,800. Of those, 43.8 percent
left the program in "good standing."
The others resigned, retired, received disability
retirements, or were terminated.
There is no limit on the length of time
that Columbus teachers can stay in intervention,
as long as they are deemed to be
making progress.

At the same time, 3,312 new teachers
participated in Columbus' intern program
and 3,094 received satisfactory evaluations,
a success rate of 93 percent. The intern
program is limited to one school year.

New teachers stay on the job far longer
in Columbus than in typical urban districts
that lack such programs, where
about 50 percent of new hires leave after
five years. In Columbus, 80 percent of
new teachers remain on the job five years
later, Mr. Grossman said.

A Broader View

While it hasn't received much attention,
that aspect of peer review is likely to become
increasingly important as districts
around the country confront increased demands
for new teachers to replace those
retiring and to keep up with enrollment
growth. The Columbus district expects to
hire some 700 new teachers in the coming
school year.

The district works closely with Ohio
State University, which provides training
for the consulting teachers and a series of
six free workshops for first-year teachers.

Proponents say peer-review programs
also provide a welcome career opportunity

Continued on page 2


June 3, 1998' EDUCATION WEEK 2

for the top-notch teach


ers who are chosen to RAISING

serve as consulting

lheSTAKES

teachers. They receive a

stipend in addition to

their regular salaries.

In Columbus, such consultants work for
three years and then return to the classroom-
but with a much broader view of
their district and of high-quality teaching
than they had before, participants say.

Lisa Hobson, who is finishing her first
year as a full-time consulting teacher
here, has a caseload of 22 educators. One
is a veteran in intervention, while the others
are new teachers, three of whom
taught elsewhere before landing jobs in
Columbus.

"It's a very interesting job," said Ms.
Hobson, a 14-year veteran. "I've learned
more about teaching than at any time in
my career. It's given me a lot of time to
think about what causes a classroom to
work and not to work."

No 'Dipstick'

Union leaders say peer-review programs
are far superior to what Mr. Grossman
calls the "dipstick" evaluations conducted
by harried principals.

Because they receive ex-

of 50 hours observing
teachers in the classroom.

But in Rochester, the local union representing
administrators filed a lawsuit,
which was ultimately unsuccessful, arguing
that evaluation was the job of principals.
Since then, administrators have accepted
the idea of peer review.

Ohio's laws for teachers are so stringent
that unions previously could-and didfind
procedural ways to overturn many
dismissals initiated by administrators.

Tom Mooney, the president of the Cincinnati
Federation of Teachers, says his
union fought "costly, ugly arbitrations"
over teacher dismissals in part because
they appeared to be random and in part to
show the American Federation of Teachers
affiliate's strength to ward off competition
from the NEA.

But that approach ignored the fact that
some Cincinnati teachers had serious

problems, he said. Those teachers received
no help from either the union or the district.
In addition, the eFT had railed against
bureaucracy, but it needed to show it was
serious about teacher quality in exchange.

"It's pretty tough to say that we ought to
have a predominant say in programs, curriculum,
methods, and books," Mr.

In Cincinnati, a principal with concerns
about a teacher's performance must refer
the teacher for intervention, rather than
"zap" her with special evaluations, Mr.
Mooney said. The process offers teachers
more resources and protection, and it
guarantees "a serious investigation," he
said.


Intervention is in


Mooney said at the confer


tended for teachers with

ence, "and then say the re


instructional problems,

view of professional practice

not those who are fre


is somebody else's job."

John quently late or absent or

Proponents of peer-review

Grossman who exhibit substance


programs argue that they

abuse problems, union

save money by reducing the

leaders say. Those issues

number of arbitrations and

are addressed by em


court cases surrounding dis


ployee-assistance pro


missals. In Ohio, it can cost


and consistent procedures

tensive training, consulting

in evaluating members'

teachers do a thorough job

grievances. In 12 years,

of documenting teachers'

Cincinnati has had only

performance, which often

Tom

results in poor teachers de-

three cases of teachers

Mooney

contesting their dis


ciding to resign rather than

fight for their jobs.

missals, Mr. Mooney said.

Such cases are handled

In Columbus, consulting

separately from the joint

teachers spend a minimum

a district between $75,000
to $200,000 to fire a tenured teacher, according
to Richard L. Logan, a labor-relations
consultant for the Columbus Education
Association.


Unions still offer their members help if
they contest peer-review decisions. In
states with collective bargaining, unions
have a legal "duty of fair representation"
that some have interpreted to mean they
must fight all dismissals.

In fact, experts say, unions must simply
show that they use fair

union-district panels that
govern peer-review programs.


With the exception of Toledo's program,
peer review is not seen as a substitute for
periodic teacher evaluations by principals.

The Toledo Federation of Teachers earlier
this year fought a proposal by the district administration
to institute regular evaluations
of tenured teachers. Instead, principals can
refer teachers for a performance review and
assistance ifthey feel it's necessary, subject
to the approval of the board of review that
governs the program.

More Protection

Procedures for referring teachers for intervention
vary. In Columbus, most of the
teachers who undergo intervention asked
for the assistance themselves, often on
the heels of a poor evaluation from their
principals.

grams and other means.

Critical Attention

As interest in peer review spreads, skeptics
are questioning whether all the
hoopla is merited. They point out the relatively
small number of teachers who are
"weeded out" under peer review.

"There's some evidence to support Chase's
claims about his union's commitment to getting
poor teachers out of the classroom-but
not a lot," concludes writer Robert Worth in
an article in the May issue of The Washington
Monthly. Mr. Worth argues that unions
should focus on reforming the state tenure
laws that make it "extremely difficult to fire
problem teachers."

Observers also are skeptical that peer
review will spread, despite the recent
publicity. The programs require a high
level of union-management trust and cooperation
and could be difficult logistically
for small districts to manage, unless
they pool their resources.

Myron Lieberman, a longtime union
critic, argues in a forthcoming book that
it's difficult to evaluate peer-review programs,
since districts have varying criteria
for their success.

And he complains that it is also hard to
gauge the true costs of the programs,
which include the salaries and stipends of
the consulting teachers, office expenses,
and the like, as well as savings from reduced
litigation.

Balancing those costs are the benefitsequally
hard to measure-of ridding a district
of ineffective teachers, and of helping
young teachers like Ms. Bouknight remain
in the profession.

"The culture of my school is that you
don't work with the other teachers," the
first-year teacher said. But her mentor
"helped by building me up inside."

Reprinted from Education Week Magazine, June 3, 1998.
Reprinted by the Reprint Dept. 800-259-0470.



Hide Document