Toledo's Internship Program; The Teacher's Role in Excellence

Hide Document

Toledo's Internship:
The Teachers' Role in
Excellence

In ~larch; 1981, the Toledo Federation of Teachers negotiated with the administration a new

approach to internships and teacher evaluation. The two conponents of this a9proach aro

the Intern Program and the Intervention Program.

The Intern Program is designed to offer the first year (intern) teacher the support, advice,
and guidance necessary to maKe the first year's experience as successful and meaningful as
possible. This suppor.t is provided by a peer (consulting teacher) who has been identified
as a master teacher. This consultant has been released from regular classroom duties in
order to direct and enhance the progress of the intern. The program allows the consulti~g
teacher the time to conduct a complete and proper evaluation of the intern's 9rogress and
ultimate success (or lack of) in meeting the criteria of the Toiedo Public' Schools for
employment. These standards and the step-by-step evaluation process are defined and outlined
in The Toledo Plan of supervision, evaluation, and goal-setting.

The Intervention Program in the Toledo Public Schools is a cooperative effort on the part
of union and managecent and is designed to assist non-probationary teachers who have been
identified as performing in a way so unsatisfactory that termination or improvement is
imperative. The intervention process, an outgrowth of teacher and administrative concerns
about the quality of the teaching staff, begins after a joint reco~endation from the
principal and the Federation building co~~ittee is sent to the Federation president and to
the assistant superintendent of personnel. A master teacher (intern consulting teacher) is
assigned to the identified teacher who must then accept the consultant.

Since ~ach intervention is unique, no standardized methods of raising teacher performance

have been adopted. Released from official classroom duties and operating without.tine

restraints, the intern consulting teacher nay use a wide variety of methods in order to

raise teaching performance to a satisfactory level.

Co~~unication is stressed throughout the intervention so that building committees and local
ad~inistrators remain knowledgeable about the format, progression and resolution of the
intervention.

~men the conSUltant feels that intervention is no longer necessary, the assistance ends,
and depending upon the contractual status of the teacher in intervention, mandated and
confidential reports are filed with the Federation and the office of personnel. Once the
appropriate reports are filed, it becomes the responsibility of management to act upon or
ignore the evaluations and/or the "status report."

The Intervention Program has received wide acceptance locally •. Teachers, administrators,
and the co~~unity view it as a means to strengthen the teaching ranks.

The program is governed by a nine member "review panel" composed of five union appointees
and four management appointees. The panel decides to accept or reject the evaluation
recommendations of the consulting teachers. The board of review also assigns consulting
teachers for all other aspects of the progran. The recon~endatlons of the panel are sent
to the superintendent who, under Ohio law, must reco~~end termination or contract renewal
to the school Board. Chairmanship of the board of review is rotated between the president

f the Toledo Federation of Teachers and the assistant superintendent for personnel.

Intern Program car. be terminated by either union or management. However, both parties
re enthusiastic about its success.


OFFICE OF PERSONNEL


n
n


c

fl


[J


-f l

i I

-t j

r:
\ i

, J

r!

i

l J

r '

i .
l j
l J

f'

r


I

~ J

[


,
l ,

l }

L •
r


L j

l J

TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

.~

TOLEDOIS INTERN PROGRAM
General. Infonnation

The Toledo Public Schools Intern Program is designed to provide assistance and
evaluation by outstanding experienced teachers for first year teachers without
previous experience.

In April, 1981, we advertised the position of intern teacher consultants in our
staff bulletin. We listed as qualifications, a minimum of five (5) years outstanding
teaching service and requested that each of the applicants provide us
with four references --three references from teachers who were currently teaching
in the same building as the applicant. and a recommendation from the building
principal. We received 75 applications. After a preliminary paper screening,
we interviewed approximately 30 applicants for 15 intern teacher consultant
positions. The teachers sel~cted had a variety of b~ckgrounds, including
special education, physical education, elementary and secondary education.. The
number of teachers actually needed to implement the program in the fall of· 181
would depend on the. number of first year teachers that Toledo Public .s.chools
hired. These 15 consultants attended a five day inservice session in August
of 1981.

The consulting teachers are limited to three years actual.experience in the
program after which they return to their regular classroom 'assignment. Each
consulting teacher works full-time in the program and is assigned no more than
ten interns. They meet with their interns before the opening of school and spend
a great deal of time observing classrooms and meeting with the interns after school.
Each consulting teacher receives an additional $2,500 in salary. Consulting
teachers attend all meetings of the Intern Board of Review which are held during
the school year.

The consulting teachers submit periodic reports to the Intern Board of Review
regarding the status of each of the interns with whom they are working. During
the first year, the observation and subsequent evaluations are done solely by the
consulting teacher. The principal completes the principal's summary form (see
page 11 of the Intern/Intervention/Evaluation book) and forwards it to the consulting
teacher who shares the eval~ation with the intern. During the second
year of probation, it is the principalls responsibility to evaluate and make a
recommendation regarding' the status of the intern. The same evaluation procedures

\ J


" Toledo's Intern Program (General Information) -continued

n

Page 2

n

and standards are used. Four-year limited contracts are granted after the second

n

l J successful year.

,"

rl

I

I The prog~am is governed by the Intern Board of Review consisting of five union~

l J

representatives and four management representatives. The Intern Board of Review

n

l i accepts or rejects the evaluation recommendations of the consulting teachers,

J

assigns consulting teachers, controls applicable inservice. manages the budget
and is responsible for all other aspects of the program. Recommendations of the

l
r,
l
]

Intern Board of Review are sent to the superintendent who. under Ohio law.
fi recommends termination or contract renewal to the Toledo Board of Education.

\• J :

I
r-";}
·l The chairmanship of the Intern Board of Review is rotated annually between the
l ) president of the Toledo Federation of Teachers and the Assistant Superintendent,
Personnel.

r1

l j

The intern program can be terminated by either union or management at any time;

r ' " ,i
J however, both parties" are enthusiastic about its success. "

r 1

I r

"

l j

,

r

I

l J

-

r

, J

r

l "

l ,

r "

I


L ~

I I


l J

4/86



C?~,F-:ZSY/JES3


.--' """.

-.
-..-~

lrl.,
:I


P

I i.
l J

,H
\

t
J

l
J

i
i
,[ 1
l )

f '
i

~
J

i.
-!.
l .
r .
I

L "

l )

..--/

TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
TOLEDO FEDERATION OF TEAcHERS
TOLEDO'S INTERVENTION PROGRAM
General Information


The Toledo Public Schools Intervention Program is designed to assist and
evaluate non-probationary teachers who have been identified by a school
staff as performing i~ a way so unsatisfactory that termination or improvement
is imperative. It is designed to assist those seriously dysfunctional
in performance unrelated to drug or alcohol abuse.

In Toledo, non-probationary teachers are third year teachers and beyond.
Toledo grants four-year provisional contracts until tenure is attained.
Tenure and a continuing contract are granted automatically. Hence, a
continuing contract is available when the teacher obtains a professional or
permanent certificate and completes three years (of the last five) service
in the district. A professional certificate is granted when 27 months of
successful teaching experience under a provisional certificate is achieved
and 18 graduate semeste~ hours beyond the bachelor's degree are ~arned.
After probation, the only evaluation of teachers is one observation justprior to the renewal of a four-year contract.

An experienced teacher who is seriously dysfunctional is a potential
intervention case. Identification can take place by the building principal
or by the teachers through their Federation building committee which is
elected annually. Before intervention can proceed, both the principal and
the Federation building committee must give their informal approval. If
either party refuses, no intervention is authorized. If approvedinformally, a joint recommendation is sent to the president of the Toledo
Federation of Teachers and to the Assistant Superintendent, Personnel.
These two people must then agree to authorize a formal intervention vote at
the school after receiving the jOint recommendation from the school.

The teacher having difficulty is informed by the Federation representative
before the informal meeting that the building committee is going to discuss
intervention. The teacher is extended the opportunity to meet with the
building committee separately, or with the committee and principal if that
is his/her desire. During this meeting, the teacher has the opportunity to
explain why he/she feels the intervention should not go forward.

The Federation building committee must decide the union's position about
the i nterventi on by a secret ballot vote of the enti re committee whi ch
includes the building representative. After the formal vote is authorized
between committee and principal their agreement makes intervention mandatorY.
A letter of notification is delivered to the teacher specifying

.
aeficiencies, assistance offered in the past, and the name of the consulting
teacher assigned to the case.

Included with this letter. is a form for use (within five days) if the
teacher wishes to appeal the intervention. An appeal is heard by a law


-over


\
,


rl

professor from the University of Toledo law school. He has complete

t :I
authority to interview any·party and issue a binding decision. The arbitrator
doe5 not decide whether the teacher is a good or poor performer. He

n

does decide whether intervention is the most appropriate remediation since

\ j
Toledo also has an employee assistance program and a vOluntarl, confidential
teacher mentor srogram; and he checks to see if we have ollowed our
identification proce ures correctly.

I J

r1

The consulting teacher is required to meet with the principal and buildingcommittee at the beginning of the intervention and at its close. Other

I '

I
fl
,
meetings do take place. The consultant has complete freedom to use whatev


I l j

er techniques are necessary to bring the teacher's performance back to
acceptable district standards. No time limits are imposed on the

-n
consultant. The career of the dysfunctional teacher rests in the hands of

-t j

the consultant.

ri
Intervention ends when performance has been brought to district standards,

l J
or when success has not been achieved after all reasonable efforts have
failed. (A typical intervention lasts about eighteen months.) At its
conclusion, the consultant issues a "status report". The report is a
factual, documented history of the case. No recommendation is made.


The status report is forwarded to the personnel office and to the
r '1 Federation. Management then decides whether a termination hearing is


l j

warranted based on the report, and the union decides through its own
internal process whether to represent the teacher in a termination
r ' proce~ding if that is the decision of management.
I


r. J Two-thirds of Toledo's identifications have been initiated by teachers
r i through their committee.
{

I

( J

5/86

l J

l l

, '

l )

I

L ~

r '

L J

l )


n



XVIII.
EVALUATION OF FIRST AND
SECOND YEAR TEACHERS,
FOUR-YEAR CONTRACT
TEACHERS, AND OTHER
CERTIFICATED PERSONNEl..
A. 1. All first andsecond year teachers are consid.
rl

~red to be members of the hnrgaining unit.

·2. Revised standards and criteria slialJ be pub.
Iished by the Board free ofcharge in booklet
(} form to each member of the bargaining unit.


"Supervision, Evaluation, Goal·Setting" is
the evaluation standard for the Board. Sub.
sequent changesmust be mutually agreed by
the Federation and the Board.

3. First and second year teachers shall have
"
the right to answer in writing any written
evaluation record of the teacher.

.... Non·probationary teachers who leave the

_ • system and return within five (5) scnool
ri years shall be subject to not more than onel J "(1) calenaar year of probation upon return

and not.more than two (2) written evaluation
reports to the Personnel Office.

I

S.
Probationary teachers alliO should consult
. Article·XXIV·B of this a.greemenL :
B. Standardi7.ed lesson plan forms, as adopted in
r :
fall, 1969, shall be distributed and exclusively util·

l j
ized in all schools. Lesson plans for an entire week
shall not be required with fewer than four (04) school
.days advance notice, when su'ch plan~ are to be


r ~

turned into the school office.

I

Ij..
.1

C. General Provisions
Probationary service is four (04) consecutive semes·
r '
ters. One·year limited contracts are granted. All·
teachers shall accrue regular service toward comple.
tion of their probationary status provided such ser·
vice complies with the above evaluation procedures.


I
' D. For the purpose ofadvancement to four (04) year
contract status,long-term substitute service shall


\ J

be credited for each semester in which the substitute
worked at least fortY·five (045) school days. Longterm
substitutes must serve one (1) year of the
tw.o (2) year probationary period in the intern
program subject to waiver by the chairperson
and' vice-chairperson of the Intern Board of
Review.

Some long-term substitutes may be placed in
the intern program when it can be determined
that service will be for one (1) semester or
longer. Determination of placement is made by the
chairperson andvice-<:hairperson of the Intern Board

of Review.
.

51

, ,

Ho~rlyteachers, tutors and.other ~imiJar·teach.
ing personn'el also shall be credIted WIth semesters
toward completion of their probationary status sub·
ject to the provisions of Article IX, H·3 and 4, but
they must complete one (1) year ofprobation as
an intern after a regular contract is granted.

Substitute service of one hundred twenty (120)
days or more in one school year regardless of long
term status shall be credited for salary purposes
according to court rulings when contract status is

granted.
Salary credit at the time a regular contract is
granted to long·term substitutes, hourly teachers,
tutors and oth'er similar teaching personnel shall
include each semester completed toward advance·
ment to four (4) year contract status. .

. E. Teachers who are on a four·year ~ontract shall
be evaluated once during the lastyear ofthe contract
for recommendation for contract renewal. One (1)
classroom observation, prearranged between the
teacher and the administrator for the purpose of
making this evaluation, shall consist of at least
twenty (20) minutes but not more than fifty·five (55)
minutes. Other classroom visits shall not be used for
this evaluation. If visitation is excessive; a limit on
visitation maybe imposed by l1Jut~al a~ee~ent of
the Federation and the B.oard. DISCUSSIon of pro·
fession'al or teaching performance shall be private.
Theevaluation form agreed to by the Board and Fed·
eration shall be used. (See appendix.) This section is
not intended to prohibit interviews for the record·
when rules and policies are violated as per Art.ide

XXXIV.
When the four·year contrad evaluation is rated
"unsatisfactory," the Intern Board of Review may
assign a consulting teacher, or another peer, to
observe and evaluate the teacher. This second eval·
uation shall be given equal weight with the first. If
both evaluations are "unsatisfactory," the teacher
could be assigned to the intervention program on a
one-year contract should the Intern Board of Review
so determine in lieu of dismissal proc.eedings.

F. The intern·intervention program shall be
continued subject to cancellation in its entirety
by either the Board or the Federation.
G. Consulting teachers in the intern program will
be paid as per Artic1eXXXVIII in addition to regular
salary and supplemental contracts held. In the event
a department chairperson is sel.ecte~ for ac~ive par·
ticipation in the program, nn mtenm chaIrperson
will be elected to serve.The cons.ult.ant, after con;plet.
ing his or her assignment, will retu~n to the chalr~er.
son's position for one year after whIch a new electIon
will be held to complete the two·year term or to m.1 a
f~1I two-year term, whichever is ap·plicable.
52


',.'J"...

[l

n

rl

l"l j

fJ ThACHER ExCEIIJENCE:,
ThACHERS

ilAKE GE

[ J Dal Lawrence Discusses the Toledo Plan

f i

I :
l )

l J

r I
i

~ j

r 1

i

l j

f ::

\ J

r·

F
F
OR MANY decades, teacher training and teacher

I

evaluation have followed traditional models. Training
typically consists of four years ofcollege with a brief
period of student teaching. Evaluation is hierarchical,
with periodic assessments based on limited observa


l, tions by the school principal.

With the country's attention focused on teacher quality,
the conventional systems are increasingly being
called into question. A number of states and localities
are establishing new programs. One of the most interesting
-and controversial-of the new proposals
was launched in Toledo, Ohio, in 1981. Called the Tole


i do Plan, its emphasis is on professional development of

l ,

l

te,achers, by teachers. Probably its most unique feature
is that it gives teachers the controlling voice in the
establishment of teaching standards, the training and
l screening of nC\y teachers, and the identification of

J

teachers in need of intense assistance. The Toledo Plan
has two components: the in~ern program and the intervention
program., Through the intern program, all
newly hired teachers are assigned for their initial teach


221 AMERICAN EDUCATOR

ing year to an experienced, expert teacher. These "consulting
teachers" are releaSed from their regular duties
and given responsibility for both the professional development
and the evaluation of the interns. The intervention
program establishes a process for identifying and
aiding veteran teachers who are experiencing severe
difficulties with their work. Both programs are overseen
by a joint labor-management Review Panel on which
teachers, through their union, hold a majority of the
seats.

The major concepts behind the Toledo Plan originated
with Dal Lawrence, president of the Toledo Federation
ofTeachers. A former,high school history teacher,
he has been president ofthe Toledo local since 1967
and also serves as a member of the Executive Committee
ofthe Ohio Federation ofTeachers and as recording
secretary of the Toledo Area Council of the AFL-CIO.
. Mr. Lawrence was interviewed by Liz McPike, editor
of the American Educator.

We welcome the response of our readers and hope
the ideas presented will spark a lively debate.

SPRING 1984


fl



Question: Obviously, the high quality and ability of
the consulting teachers are key elements of this program
To a large degree, the success of the program
rests on their shoulders. .What qualities were }Iou looking
f()r in the consulting teachers?

rl
rl
tawrence: We were looking for several important
characteristics: First of all, we wanted a good teacher.
We wanted someone that other people recognized as
being an outstanding teacher. We wanted someone who
was good at human relations skills, good at communica


J tion. The last thing we wanted was to have a consulting
teacher turn into a supervisor and be feared by the
interns. We also wanted someone who could write,

n
because consulting teachers have to write status re


l J
ports, they have to write recommendations, they have
to write clearly for the co!1ferences they have with their
interns, and so forth. We wanted to know how they

, :J
n LJ
n reacted to stressful situations, to emergencies, to unforeseen
circumstances. Finally, we wanted to know
whether thev would be able to recommend that an
intern not ~renewed for a second year if that's what
the situation called for. That's never easy to do, but at
the end of each one-year internship, we do have to
grapple with that decision. The consulting teachers
have to be very conscientious, thorough, and straightforward
in their reports and recommendations. They
have to be objective. They can't duck difficult decisions.
So those are the kinds of things we looked for.
There were seventy-five applicants, and we chose
fifteen people to go into a pool from which we draw to
match as closely as possible the subject and grade level
r I ofboth the interns and those teachers identified for the
I intervention program. The teachers selected went

L J

through intensive training, and we have continual inr
1 service, consultation, and feedback. Currently, out of
r tht fifteen consulting teachers in the pool, seven of
l J them are working full time in the program.

Question: Are they paid extra?
Lawrence: They're paid Sl ,250 extra, plus they're paid
for any supplementary contracts they might have held
even though they are not doing the supplementary
duty. This isn't enough but it is some reCOgnition. As the

r· progr.un is now set up, consulting teachers can only

I

serve in that role for three years; then they return to the
dassroom.
Question: Lets concentrate first on the internship
part of the program Can you gil1e us a sense of the

l relationship between the consulting teacher and the

J

intern?

Lawrence: A consulting teacher is a mentor to the new
teacher. He or she is responsible for the professional
development of the intern. It is a very personal and
supportive approach, and it gives the new teacher a
much better chance of succeeding.

A consulting teacher is assigned from seven to ten
interns. If he or she is working with one or two teachers
in the intervention program, there will be fewer interns

[ :

!
assigned ~ccausewe find that the intervention program
l takes a considerable amount oftime. A consulting teach


J

er will spend, on the average, half a day each week with
each intern. H someone's having difficulty, he will receive
more attention. .

L.J
We've found that the areas in which the interns need

24 I AMf.RJCAN EDUCATOR

~Under the traditional system,
there was little or no attention
given to the professional
development ofthe new
teacher.'

\
'~,



\



the most help are classroom management and teaching
technique. A considerable amount of time is spent in
classroom observation, followed by extensive discussion
of what worked well and what didn't. A seasoned
teacher has probably experienced many of the
same problems at some point in his own teaching and
can spot the weak areas and offer alternative techniques.
Often, interns are given the opportunity to observe
other successful teachers in the field. Some consulting
teachers videotape the intern and then they
review the teaching process together. Teachers typically
get very little feedback on their own teaching, so this
is very useful.

Some interns need help with their questioning technique,
others with organizing lesson plans, preparing
IEPs, getting ready for a parent-teacher conference,
finding out what resources are available, interpreting
the results of standardized tests, and so on.

Also, new teachers are often overwhelmed by the
bureaucracy, the system, the paperwork. The consulting
teacher knows the system and can show the intern
how to make things happen. What are the procedures
for dealing with extreme diScipline problems that can't
be adequately handled in the classroom? What do I do
when I'm out of supplies and the office says there's no
money? When can I use the mimeograph machine?
What if the janitor isn't cleaning the blackboards? The
list is endless. .

SPRING 1984.

l J


n________--____ •

;.Uld I'd like you to look at it.'! I looked at it an it said

fl \ J
fl , :I
rJ
And sometimes it's just the idea of having someone
there to reaJnrm what they're doing, to tell them they
arc on the right track.

Some of the process is very formal. for example, the
consulting teacher and the intern jointly establish
objectives. These are always put into writing. We want
to make certain the interns know exactly what they
need to be working on to improve their performance.
Then, twice a ycar, they're evaluated based on how well
they arc meeting those objectives.
Question: How does this newprogram compare with
the old system? Were new teachers pretty much in a
sink·or·swim situation?

Lawrence: Yes, always. A new teacher dosed that door
and, for the most part, was on her own. It was not
uncommon, for example, for a teacher to begin the year
without books. I had a teacher this fall who called the
office and said she didn't have chairs or desks, but she
did have kids. Under the traditional system, the princi·
pal would come in to observe and evaluate; there was
little or no attention given to the profeSSional dcvelop·
ment of the new teacher. If the principal got in three
times during a semester, that was about the maximum.
There were instances where they didn't show up af all.
When I started teaching, I didn't have the principal
come into my classroom at all my first year. I was called
down to the office toward the end of the second semester
and the principal said, "I have your evaluation here

SPRJNG 1984

fl

J

1 0

r ..

r'

l )
r '

i

~ j

r .
I

l ]

l. j
"satisfactory." In fact, there wasn't anythin~ in it that I
would object to. I said, "How do you know I'm
satisfactory?" And he said, "Oh, ah, ah, the kids let me
know. I knew I didn't have to spend any time with you.
You're doing a good job." I said, "Oh, thank you," and I
left. The point is I might have been having all kinds of
trouble and the same thing would have happened. He
would have probably found it out from the kids. He
certainly wouldn't have had enough time to help me. It
was sink or swim. I was one ofthe luck\' ones who didn't

sink. . .
Question: One ofthe major problems with tbe tratti·
tional system is that the principal or assistant prine;·
.pal does not have suffiCient knowledge ofthe mriollS
subject matters, grade levels, and specialization areas
-the old story of the ex-biOlogy teacher tlJling to
adequately evaluate, not to mention help, a Fretlch
teacher, a math teacher, ora special education teclcher.
This program changes that.

Lawrence: Yes, that's one of the major advantages 0#
our approach. With a pool of consulting teachers to
draw from, we have a great deal of ability to put a
science teacher with a science teacher, an art teacher
with an art teacher, an elementary te'ldll.'r with an
elementary teacher. That mat<:h makl.'s a critical diJference
in both the quality ofassistan<.'e that can be offered
a new teacher and in the reliability of the evaluation.
Question: Allotberperelillial lensiollin teacher evaluatioll
is tbat there is no finn consensus on what
wllstitutes the proper standard ofpractice in a gillen
teaching area. We may all be able to agree that certain
I'nethods are inappropriate, but we might n()t agree on
what is the best or the right approach in the classroom
G'iven this lack ofconsensus, do tbe consulting teacher
and the Review Panel make allowancesfor legitimate
differences in teaching s~J'le?

Lawrence: Yes, they do. We don't try to tell an intern
what is the best technique. The consulting teachers
know that their goal is not to make copies ofthemscives.
We present the kinds of things that work in different
situations. We do that by taking into consideration the
interns' own abilitil.'S and interests, what they are doing
best and what works for them. We are not, and we reall"
stress this to the consulting teachers, here to tell an
intern that this is the way you do it. We're here to
present alternatives, to identify strengths and we<lkn(."§,ses,
and to help them achieve proficiency in those techniques
that really do work. There are some things. as
you say, that we know won't work. You always see them
in beginners, and they are very easily corrected. But so
far as presenting a particular lesson, there is no magic,
"right" way. We don't pretend there is, and we don't
force people into a predetermined mold.
Question: At the end of the illtemship, the Relliew
Panel votes on whether to recommend the in tern for a
second year of teaching, is that right?

Lawrence: Yes. We would have been receiving
periodic reports from the conSUlting teachers throughout
the year, all of which are gone over with careful
scrutiny by the RevieW Panel. The consulting teachers
have to justify what they are doing. We pepper them
with questions, and there is a lot of back-and-forth discussion.
We know that the intern isn't going to be

AMERJCAN EDUCATOR / 25

l. ~

n
n
perfe.'e.·t at the e.·nd of the year. But we have a definite.' set generally known throughout the st· not the entire

of criteria and standards that was developed jointly by community. Those are the types of people who will be
the union and management and that we are continually identified and recommended for the intervention prorefining.
gram.

rl

The Review Panel is composed offive unltm and four Question: What is life like for a teacher who is hal ling
management representatives. I wanted it to be all teachsuch
problems, whose prOfeSSional life is in turmoil?·

fl

er representatives, but the administration didn't think Lawrence: Their lives and their reactions are just like l j that was the greatest idea in the world. So we agreed to a anyone else whose life is not successful, whether they

~i'

r1
r1
joint panel, but with teachers retaining the majority. We are teaching school or trying to sell a product or
operate on a two-thirds-vote rule. No decision is made whether it is an engineer whose bridge just fell down.
unless six of the nine members agree. They are very unhappy people. They are frustrated, and
:l In the first year of the program, we had nineteen many times they are cynical and bitter. As a defense
interns. We voted to recommend seventeen for renew-mechanism, they often make scapegoats of everyone
.al. Last year we had forty-tlve interns and voted to renew and everything. Before we initiated this program, severely

all except one. So, out of sixty-four new teachers over troubled teachers just lived with the problem. They
the two-year period, we. recommended that three of couldn't hide it. You can't hide those kinds ofprublcms in
them have their contracts non-renewed. You might be a school setting. But they would live with it. They lived
-interested in how this compares to previous years: In with it very unhappily, very frustrated. There was no help.

lj

rl

\ ]
the five years before the implementation of our proThere
was no place they could go to get help.
gram, only one new teacher had been terminated. Question: Because to get help was also to place ,,'o(lrQuestion:
Now that teachers -through the union -self in trouble?

f1

are overseeing the development and evaluation of Lawrence: That's right. If you go to the principal and

l J

prospectil!e entrants to the profession, aren '/you mOllsay,
"I need help," you're asking for trouble, and they
ing toward a redefinition ofthe role ofthe principal? knew that. TIle other interesting point is that their
Lawrence: Yes, thank God, I think we finally are. And colleagues many times wouldn't give them help be:
[ J it's high time we did. During the intern year, the princicause
they didn't feel it was their responsibility and
pal has only a very minimal role. He maintains a record because the situation was often so bad, they didn't have
of the intern's attendance and other noninstructional the time to give the kind of intense assistance that was
matters, but the development of the new teacher is in needed. In very severe cases, it is typical for the other r~ the hands of experienced colleagues. That's the way it teachers in the building to say, "Well that's just the way
should be. Principals don't teach school. And teachers, I he is," or, "I wish she'd quit, I hope I don't get her kids
r ") should add, don't file reports with the state education next year," that sort ofattitude. Now we hear comments

~

,

I
department. You need good, competent people in both that it's a shame we didn't have this program five or ten

L J

roles. We should stop this nonsense about a person who years ago, that if we did, such and such a teacher could
doesn't teach school being the instructional leader. have been saved.
i ( At the beginning of the program, the principals hated Question: What happens during a typical interven[
it, naturally. They felt they had lost a lot of power and tion process?

;
influence. You know, it took us eight years at the Lawrence: The interventions are really, really tough,
bargaining table to win this. We-first put the idea of an and they're exhausting for all parties involved. You pour
intern program in our bargaining package in 1973. We yourself into it and then little things begin to happen.

l J
argued and argued and the principals fought and fought Some improvements are shown, and the tension begins
and we didn't get it. It was one of the last things we to ease. We can now identify the stages of a typical
pulled off the table, and we were right back at it in 1975 intervention. The intern consulting teacher goes in with
and continuing right up until 1981, when management the teacher in trouble and there's hostility: I've been
finally agreed to give it a try. Now, after two years ofthe identified, I'm not this bad, I'm afraid. There is a
progr'.lm. I would say 90 percent of the principals are breaking-in period, in which the consulting teacher is

r '
supportive because we've demonstrated that the proestablishing
rapport with the person in trouble. It rakes
cess works. a while. At first, you don't get very much accomplished

l J
Question: LeI's mOll(! now to a discussion of the inother
than trying to build confidence and trust. Once
ten'ent/on program This is an excerpt from the offi· you get over that hurdle, which takes about a month,
cial description: "/nterl'ention is designed to bring you get into the phase of identifying the problems,

L J
direct, concentrated assistance from a consulting trying to isolate those problems, and also building confiteacher
to a teacher experiencing sel'ere prOblems in dence in the person based on what they're doing right,

( -the classroom These problems might include, but not because no one does everything wrong. And so you're
be limited to, classroom management, teaching techbuilding
in a positive kind of way and isolating the
niques, emotional instability, or stress." Could you things that are causing problems and offering suggeselaborate
on that? tions about how to improve those techniques while
Lawrence: Intervention is only intended for someone giving the person ideas that they may have missed somewho
has had a problem for a considerable period of where along the line.

l ,

time. By that I mean not just a couple of months but a In almost all of the intervention cases, the reacher has
year ofproblems 'or tcn years ofproblems, during which one teaching method only, which he uses over and over
time they have gone without help. They have developed again. It isn't working, and he doesn't know where to go
a lot ofbad habits. Parents are complaining. the teachers ' next. He's afraid to try anything different. So you begin
in the building are complaining. Their deficiencies are to introduce new techniques, new procedures. You

26 I AMERICAN EI>UCATOR
SPRING 1984


cP4r b


itt the beginning ofthe\1 program, the principals
hated it, naturally. They

rl
felt they had lost a lot of
.. power and influence.'

'... ;
fl


.... .

•.... '~
.

-~ ~

-l:i

.....


"

[ J

r '

I

" J

i


l J

l ,

;

LJ

lj

l J

, j

Sn!NG 1984

take one at a time. You do a g()od job at that, then take
another'one. You do a good joh at that. This phase might
last several months depending on the individual and
how longstanding the bad habits are. And then, the good
part is when the person finally begins to succeed with
some new technique, some new approach. You can see
him begin to smile for the first time, maybe, in ten years.
You can see him saying to himself: "Gee, that does work,
and I can do that." Self-confidence, missing for so long,
begins to return. And the kids begin to respond in
different ways to the teacher. At that stage. the. rapport
between the consulting teacher and the person in trouble
is usually very solid. A very close professional bond
develops .

I should add that there is no limit to the duration of
the intervention process. There is no hastiness. We have
some interventions that are in their second year.
Question: To date, what have been the outcomes of
the interoention program?

Lawrence: We have had twenty-four people identified
for intervention. Four of those are now out of the pro-\
gram, doing acceptabl~ work.on their own again. We
were successful in obtaining disahility retirement for a
couple of people. Another individual wanted to lea\'C
the teaching division and move into the nonteaching
division. We arranged that transfer. and that person is
much happier than he was in the classroom. One per.
son, who was on a one-year contract, was terminated.
Fifteen teachers are still in the program.
Question: At the end ofthe intervention process, does
the Review Panel make any recommendation con·
cerning the status of the teacher who has been in the
program?

Lawrence: No, and neither does the consulting teach·
er. This is very different from the procedure followed in
the intern program in which the Review Panel makes a
formal recommendation. In the intervention program,
the union's involvement is almost exclusively in terms
of participating in the decision to place the teacher in
the program. Unlike the intern program, the! Review
Panel does not playa part in the Status reports or get
involved in other details. When the consulting teacher
determines that the intervention process is completed,
he prepares a report detailing the work that has taken
place. If the administration, at that point or any point,
decides to initiate termination proceedings against the
teacher, and ifthat teacher requests representation, the
union treats the situation like it would any other grievance.
We would not be in the position ofhaving put our
imprimatur on the status reports. So if there's a good
case to be made, we would he able to arbitrate the
dismissal.
Question: But the union is intimately involved in the
decision to place the teacher in interoention, whicb
means, as you've said, identifying that teacher as
someone who is having serious prOblems. And as I
understand it, once the decision is made, the teacher
has no choice but to en fer the program orface possible
charges ofinsubordination. As you knou~ the union's
involvement in this kind Of peer review is a controversial
idea. In the intern program, the Review Panel with
the union in the majority -actually makes a
recommendation as to whether a first-year teacher
will be renewed And in the inten.'ention part, the

AMERI('.AN EDll(".ATOR / 27

L. J


n


[l
[loJ

l

rj
[1J

, .!

n


(1j

[ I

j

-

r-1

l J

r I
l J

c,

[J

l !

~

J

r "

l J

r

l J

r

I

L ;
r

l J

(
l J

l J

union is party to the decision to place a teacher in the

program Do you see a conflict of roles here for the

union? ,

Lawrence: The intervention component is obviously

more controversial than the intern idea where we are

dealing with probationary teachers who are not yet

full-fledged members of the profession and who tradi


tionally do not have the same rights as tenured teachers.

There are other examples in the labor movement -for

instance, the apprenticeship programs run by the build


ing trades unions -in which the union is involved in

the training and evaluation of new people.

The intervention program is much more in the devel


opment stage. We went into it with our eyes open

knowing that there were going to be things that had to

be changed as we learned and worked our way through

some of these problems. Weare not presenting any of

this as the best that can happen, but we are learning as

we go, taking it one step at a time.

You first have to recognize that being identified for

intervention is not synonymous with having your job

placed in jeopardy. Our goal, our first responsibility, is

to improve the performance of that person so that the

individual is not in jeopardy, so that his or her job is not

in jeopardy. Without doubt. we are saving the cru-eers of

some teachers, because if their performance continued

to deteriorate and discharge proceedings were brought

by management, we could lose a lot of those cases if

they went to arbitration.

We are doing everything we can to see that there are .
safeguards against hasty or unfair treatment. For example,
let's say a principal wants to place a teacher in
the program. If the union committee does not think
that's an appropriate program for that teacher, it can
veto the principal's recommendation. And it has been
OlJr practice that before a decision is made to place a
tcacher in intervention, there must be a unanimous,
confidential vote of the union building committee at
that teacher's school. That committee of teachers is
elected ~nually by the other teachers in the school, so
it is very cautious about going out on a limb. It knows it
has to maintain the confidence and the trust of that
teaching staff. In addition, before the building committee
is empowered to even consider the case, there is a
review of the situation at the level of my office. Finally,
to afford as much due-process protection to the teacher
as possible, we are now looking into the establishment
of an appeal process through an independent, neutral
third party. As we envision it, any teacher who feels he
or she was erroneously or unfairly identified for intervention
could have a review by this third party to
determine if the identification was warranted.

I don't have all the answers, but if there are further
points of conflict or tension that we haven't yet faced,
we are determined to work them out so that we can
keep teachers rather than administrators in charge of
setting standards for the profession. I don't see any
unresolvable conflict between this program and the
responsibility of the union to protect people against
unfair treatment or unfair dismissals ..
Question: I knowfrom looking atyour contract that
the Toledo Federation ofTeachers has been quite successful
in its attempts to' put teachers in charge Of
professional decisions. For example, teachers serve on

281 AMERICAN EOL'CATOR


~The keyfactor in building
a quality system is to
place profeSSional
decisions in the hands of
the teachers themselves.'

SPRING 1984


l., j


.@PFB

all committees related to cUn'ic:ulum, test/nR. and ccive as working. Otherwisl', they're going to put their

11

I J

,
I I

, \

I

I

stull det'(!/opment. The committee that oversees in·
sert'ic:e training is composed exclusively of teach£>f's.
Teac:h£>f's elect their own department chairpersons, and
monthly meetings are required between the union and
the administration "to discuss matters ofeducational
poli9~ .. Doyou see this newprogram as one more step
in that direction?

Lawrence: Yes, that's our goal. 1ne first thing we did in
this school district, in our first contract, was to do
everything possible to get control of inservice training.
We've been building from that point ever since. We've
used the bargaining process to build a real profession
and to establish those conditions that make quality
teaching possible: smaller class size, preparation time,
training and assistance, salaries that will attract good
people. and so forth. The key factor in building a quality
system is to place profeSSional decisions in the hands of
the teachers themselves. Historically, every profession
has exercised control over who is deemed acceptable
to enter its ranks.

'Through our involvement in this program, teachers
stand now more than ever at the center of the profes·
sional endeavor. We are involving large numbers of
teachers -the consulting teachers, the interns, the
teachers experiencing serious difficulties, the union
building committees -in examining, refining, and
overseeing the standards of teaching practiCe. I think
that's an important role for the union to play.

We would like to place other professional decisions
in the hands ofteachers. I want to get away from the idea
that the teacher is a hired hand who shows up and
there's the class ofkids -someone else has made all the
deciSions, and sometimes made them badly, without
adequate information. That's not acceptable for two
rea~)flS: First, the educational output has not been
satisfactory under these conditions, and secondly, no
one can behave like a responsible professional unless he
is given responsibility. I would i'~;:e teachers every·
where to draft the class lists like we do in Toledo. I
would like to see placement determination decisions
made bv teachers. I would like to see teachers take the
lead in the discussion of what can be done next year at
their schools to improve the instructional program as a
result of what they learned this year. We can only
accomplish these things through collective bargaining:
That's our tool. Nothing is going to be handed to us on a
silver platter.
Question: What has been the reaction ofthe publiC to
this program?

Lawrence~ Very positive. The parents are enthusiastic.
'Ihey are curious. They like it. The press has been enthu·
siastic. The teachers themselves are taking pride in the
program. There's no doubt that this is contributing to
heightened public confidence in the schools. Toledo,
like many other urban school systems around the coun·

. try, had its share ofproblems during the 70s: a declining
industrial base, a serious recession, a shortage of funds,
two school closings. Morale was very low. We were
forced to go on strike in 1970 and 1978.
Now the system is on its way back to sound health.
We even passed a large operating levy recently. It's a
constant uphill battle. You absolutely must have a pub·
lie school system that works and one that parents per·

SPRING 1984

kids in private schools. '111en you add the idea of tuition

tax credits, which is nothing less than paying people to

leave the public school system, and we can sec how

important it is to convince the public of the excellence

ofour schools. I think our program can havt' a dmmatic

impact on public opinioJl. Certainly the public is going

to be listening and appreciative if the teaching profes·

sion itself makes it clear that we take seriously the

rcsponsibility for high standards for new teachers and

for improving the performance of those teach~rs with

serious problems.

Question: As YOIl knou\ a number (~f otber scbool

districts and AFT local ullions around the country

halle expressed interest in tbe Toledo Plan. What

advicedoyou haL1efor those wllo mightbe considering

the establishment ofsomething similar in their areas?

What conditions are necessary to make such a pro·

gram successfu.l?


Lawrence: First -I guess this goes without saying -
there must be widespread support from the mem·\
bcrship. We first posed the idea of an intern program to
our members in 1973, and the response was 5 to 1 in

favor.

Second, the union must be very strong. It must have

the trust and contldence of its members. It must have a

solid contract that tlrmly protects the rights of teachers.

It must be effectivt' at the school level, with an active

union committee at e\'ery school site. And. of course,

this program cannot exist in the middle ofa jurisdiction·

al dispute with the NEA. 1he tcaching force must be

unified.

As for the administration, they have to be willing to

admit that the traditional system hasn't been working

well. They have to be willing to change the existing

relationships, to give up some of their power, to give

teachers more responsibility. They have to re-think

their attitudes toward evaluation and agree that evalua·

tion must be tied to a strong professional dcvclopm(.'nt

system.

I should also caution people to make sure they are
protected against any Yeshiva·type legal decisions. Col·
lective bargaining laws should be reviewed to ensure
that consulting teachers will not be excluded from the
bargaining unit and that the assumption of these new
responsibilities will not in any way jcopardize the
union's status as collective bargaining agent.
Question: One last question: The union's emphasis in
these two-new programs is on excellence in the teach·
ing profession. What abou.t excellence among princi·
pals? ShOUldn't there be a similarprogram for them?

Lawrence: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, this school

district is now very close to putting in place an interven·

tion program for school principals. Principals are not

appOinted by God as perfect and forever will remain

perfect. They have to learn their role, and they need

help and support in doing what they do the same as

teachers need help and support. Some of them need to

be taken out of the school business. The way we have

gone about appointing and policing the managers ofour

schools doesn't make any sense. Everybody can agree

that we need good, competent principals, supervisory

personnel, and curriculum people. But we have to rede


fine the parameters of those jobs_

AMERICAN EDUCATOR I 29


rl ;r

"', and an enthusiastic supporter or the pro· n ., sram, -'
\ J Berore 1981, Toledo tcachers were

evaluated by building princip31~, But tra·
ditional methods of te3ch~r e'.'aluatil\n
lrl . had proved ineffective and buruensoml.',
:J and ballles betwe~n labor :lnd manage,
ment flared up over botched or incomplete
'e~'aluations, As a result, the top adminis·
trators in Jthe district began to look serio


l

lJ

ously at in'volving the union in the training
and proressional development of staff
members, (The ractthatthe TFT was both

rl

I ' strong and respected played no small pari l j in management's decision to review the
'situation,)

The s),stem of evaluation used by the
-rJ Toledo principals stressed many of the
\ j same skills that arc now emphasized by
teacher "consultants, n Bllt principals rare·
r l Iy had adequate time for evaluatiq: and

I !

assisting new teachers, and too often all

l j

but the poorest teachers were roulinel)'
" recommended for continuing contracts.
-';.:; (Only one new teacher was terminated in

r-1

the five years immediately preceding the

l

S1art of the new program.)

Moreover, due process procedures
were often ignored, and the number of in·
dividuals doing the evaluating -some iO
principals -made uniformity impossible

: '.:. to a.chievc. Problems of due process and :

r 1

,
nonuniform evaluation procedurtS some-

l J
times made it necessary for the school
district to retain teachers who would
ot.herwise have been terminated.

(Today, SCVC'1l consulting teachm over


sec: the professional development of nar-.
·ly 70 beginning teachers. Uniformity and
due process can be more closely moni·

,
,
r' tored, and seven interns have been denied
l ., contract renewal since the new program
beg.ao. There can also be a close mat.ch be·

'


tween the teaching /kld of an intern and
that of a consultant. Since the consulting
". -I..e:a.chers ue released from ~class.
~room duties, they are free to channel all of

• their energies into training the beginning
. teachers. Their effectiveness has won O\'CT
many detractors.

,
l ,

l ,

l ,

Prind~a!s have not been excluded
from the evalua!ion process. Toledo has a
two·ycu prf)bationary period for its be·
ginning teachers. During the second year,
princip~ls conduct the evaluations, using
the ~ame mr,dards and criteria as those
used by the consulting teachers during the
first year. There have been no instances in·
which an uni3tisfaclory rating was g:l\'~
in the second year, a fact that altests to
the effectiveness of the first.year screening
by the consulting teachers.

nrHE FIRST TASK in organizing

L'le Intern-!ntervention Program
was the selection of the teacher
. . consultants. Seventy-five of lh~
district'S 2,364 teachers applied for thc
position. Each applicant was required to
have five years of outstanding teaching
service, substantiated by confidential

'\

'.

.; .~.

,i '.. :

'. ~.. "

,.,: ~'{.

" . :-'.' .r.~"

...'-.

~~'''''',!,;,."._.~ --:; .. :.":.. 0' ~.' ~ ~:.:;:

•

li>l:l;i6<.II....-•• _, .-_ f·... .. -•.•. 1.<•.J ......

references from the principal, 'the TIT
building r~presentati\'e, and three other
teachers. Applicants were also asked to
demonstrate their verbal ability in wrinen
and oral expression.

Fifteen consuliants, trained in various
specializ.alions in elementary and secon·
dary education, were d:osen. The con·
sultants agreed to $cJ'\'e for three years,
after '".. hich they were to return to their
original 'classroom assignments, All con


. sultants received special stipends to com·
pensate them for the additional hours of
work that their new role entailed.

Teaching techniqt:es, classroom man·
agement skiUs. and contmt knowledge are
the major areas stressed in the program.

. rn judging the progress of a beginnC1", a
cor.sulting teacher is required to e)(amine
such things as the beginner's ability to ask
meaningful questions that lead learners
Ihrou£h a lesson, the beginner's abilit]' to
interact appropriately and impartially
with students, and the beginn<!r's abilit)' to
measure student progress.

Under the Intern·lnter\·ention Pro·
gram, the evaluation of a beginning teach·
er is a process or continuous goal·setting,
based on detailed observations and fol·
low.up cOllrercn~c!s, curing which an in·
lern 3nd ,l';C::1SUlt:l:1t c:ln analyze the nov·
ice's tca~hi:lg beha',iors and sci practical
goals. The consultant may point Oul a de·
ficiency, suggest a new teaching method,
or demonstrate a sample lesson. A
book leI outlining procedures and guide·
1:I~cs for the (,"J:;~~lion of bq;innir.z
teachers has been distributed to every
leacher ar.d administrator in the Toledo
school s)';:~'m,

366

PHI DElTA )(APPAN
PAOIOJ by D.ltid SIIIIO"l


n
[l
J
n
rl" .1
\ J
n
[l
J
n
rl" .1
\ J
<.

is imposed on any pan of the intervention sultanl

determin~e. 7.).

process, and this flexibility allows con· longer necessary. This happens when' the
sultanlS to use a wide variety of resources teacher has achieved a satisfactory level of
10 improve Ihe performance of troubled classroom performance, when the con·
teachers. . sultant delermines that the tcacher C4n no

Teachers are assigned to intervention longer benefit from further assistance, or '
for a varieiy of reasons. Many of them when (after a reasonable time) the con·

. have lost their ability to control, direcl, or suit ant has not been able to improve the
motivate students. The reasons for these teacher's performance. When Ihe relation·
difficullies range from such traumas as a ship between the consultant arid the teach·
recent divorce or the dealh of a family er ends, the consullant issues a "status
member to drug dependency or what is report."
commonly called teacher burnout. AI· The status report is submilled to the
though consullanls arc not specifically school district personnel office and 10 the
trained to handle personal problems, they TFT office. Management then decides

~ are able to seck professional help for what action, if any, it will take. If the
,,,I'" troubled teachers through the district'S 'district seeks termination, the union bases

[ j

The governing body of the Intern·In· Emplo)'ee Assistance Program. its decision about whether or not to repre·
tervention Program is a nine· member Other teachers arc assigned to in· sent the teacher on the same criteria that
panel composed of five TFT appointees tervention because they have ne\'er would be applied ~to ~y other grievance.

rl

-fand
four indh'iduals named by Ihe !chool masti:red basic teaching techniques. Those Final and binding arbitration is available
l J

district's personnel office. The watchdog who fall into this category include teach· to the teacher if the union chooses to de·

efforts of this panel help insure Ihe con· ers who had inadequate student leaching fend him or her. Other statutory hearing
r l sistency and integrity of the program. The experiences and teachers of vocational rights are available if the union chooses
~ I panel accepts or rejects the recommenda· subjects who were recruited from industry not to defend the teacher. Unlike the in·


l:
tions of the consulting teachers at the end and who lack college training •. The con· : tern program, the review panel does not
" of each evaluation period (December IS .:. sultants In\'C . noted that the chances fot 'make z.ny ~tionabout the fu·
and March IS). improved performance are bem:r In c:ast:S' 'lore status of 1 lJ:aI;.her placed in inter·

The consultants are called before the in which no outs.ide personal problem is vcntion.

lJ
.;.

review 'panel to expla,jn, annotate, and, evident. . . Twelve of the 22 teachers placed in in.
. , justify their ree.ommcndations. After the ,,:. The pnxcn by ",'hich a teacher i.s as· tervention are stm in the prOgTam. Fh'e of
r
f
1
~ spring review, the recommendations of signed to intervention has deliberately the others have bct:n.restOTed to a satisfac-"


I

the consultants are sent to th.e supcrinten-been made slow and meticulous. The W-tory level of performance, one was dis


_l

J dent to be submiued to the school board . lial referral can come from the school ,missed, two chose to leave teaching, and
.., ..... for action. The rC'o'iew panel also monito~ '. principal or from ~TfTs building-level" two were granted disability retirements by

r :
and carefully scrutinizes the work of the committee. bl.lt both the union and'the the state.
consulting teachers; it asks interns to cri-. disfriet personnel office must conc:uT be·
l
J ,tique both the evaluation program as a fore intervention can be authorized. Ona: Toledo's evaluation program has won
..,' , whale and t1i..e servkes of, the consuluril$ , these two' offices have agreed that.1nttr-pLaudits from most of the principals who


r ,

.: who worked with them. TFT Pmident' "ention is justified and represents the brn initially opposed it. Several have written

letters commending the worle of the con· .

Dal Lawrence and' Assistant Superinten-' way to provide immediate help for the

1 j

dent William Lehrer serve alternately as troubled teacher, a series o( meetings be-sultants. Others have suggested that con·

sultants
be im'olved in the second·year

head of the panel.
tween the principal and the TFT building. I' t" A' S' t d t

r ;

level committee is authorized. Another . eva ua IOns. w sSlstant . uperm en en
votc is taken, and, if boththc principal L~hrer says, We get conSIStency, we g~t
l j HE SECOND PHASE of the '·and·thc~mnt.o: ~, a tonsultin.J ~.co~~ people closely matche;1 III
Toledo Intern.Intervention Pro-ladler is assigned to the lroub1ed teacher. ~nm~ to t~tcach;rs they arc ~Slgn~


0

gram offers assist.a~ 1D in-.· A teacher identified for intc:rvention 0, han ~~ we a~'C a, wadiy,fficuas;IS

'.
. ...... _.-'-~~1 he 1 tr.u c:nwoom"Cr.r:pctlenong llies,

T

L j . semcc tc:arnen whose perform-. has ,= nb',t to apJo"-A' t p a.c.cmcm 10 a . h . half I' 'th th

• '"
r. ....'1 out t e usu con ron allon WI e
ancc IS so poor that they must eJlher 1m-neutral thIrd party. A Law professor IT"Om union."

provc or far.e termination. Often the diffi-thc University of Toledo CoIJc:&C of Law

la\io'Tenc:c, the TFT pn:sidtnt, points

cultic:s that these teachers are having in-SelVc:5 as referee and has the authority to . 'out 1hat Toledo tc:achm can now show
volve classroom management or an inabil· make a decision that is binding on all LfJe public that they care about quality aDd
ily 10 prescnt material clearly. Twent)··t ..... o parties. In ordct to detennine whether the

that
thc:y will not tolerate unacceptable

troubled teachers have been assigned con· placement procedure was properly con· performa'nce.• wit is important for teach.
sultants as part of the intervention portion ducted and whether the placement itself is
of the program. The consultant assigned reasonable, he may C41J anyone he wishes ers to accept the ultimate responsibility

L J

for policing their profession, if we expect

to a case is from the same academic area to give testimony.
as the trOUbled teacher, and the goal of During an intervention, communica. any real chans:s in the future," Lawrence
the intervention is to improve the tion is vital. The two groups that author. ~)·S. "I see n" reason for a union not to
___ I' classroom performance of that teacher to ized the intervention need to be kept use collective barga,jning to build a profes·


I
sion for teachers." 0

an acceptable le"cJ. abreast of its progress. Consultants are
The first task of the consulting teacher careful to respect the rights of the trou·


•for (unhcr in(om1ation about Ihe Toledo Inlem.
is to establish a sound working relation· bled teacher, but they must brief the prin. Inlel"'cnlion ProEram ducribcd in Ihis aniele .... rile 10
l
J ship with the troupled teacher. The rela· cipal and the union's building representa· Dal la"'rcn~. Plnidcnl, Toledo Federation or
Teachcrl, 320 W. WoodNIf. Toledo, OH 43624, 0110


tionship between the two is often intense, tive at the start and at the end of Ihe inter·

William lchlC', A!.Sillanl Supcrintcndcnl, PC'\oOn~cI.

and the kInd of relationship that they de· vention.

Toledo Public Schools. Manhallan and Elm Su .•
"dop is ler, entirely to Ihem. No time lim:t The intervention ends when the con· Tc·kdo, OH 4)608.

JANUAR Y 1985 367

l j


n
n
n


"

~.

[
[
j
rl

~ . ~

L J

r 1

i

L J

l J

r '
l j

r '

[ '.

r'
L J

',Newswire '..'i

"

..

TEACHING OVERSEAS Longing for
something completely different in your
teaching career? The chances to teach,
travel or earn credit overseas are outlined in
a new brochure from the AFT International
Affairs department entitled Opportunities
Abroad for Teachers.

The brochure lists U.S. government agencies
that offer teaching positions, the education
departments of various U.S. territories
and outlying states and private agencies that
provide teaching and education opportunities
worldwide. It provides a concise summary of
those opportunities.

Copies of the 16-page brochure are 60
cents each and available from the AFT order
department. Ask for item #589.

'CREATION SCIENCE' RULING

The AFT is hailing the U.S. Supreme Court's
ruling in the Louisiana "creation science"
case. The ruling found unconstitutional those
state laws that require public school teachers
to also cover "creation science" if they
teach the theory of evolution. "The Supreme
Cour;t has rescued the nation's public school
students from those trying to impose their
beliefs on others," AFT president Albert
Shanker noted. "We need to guide students
in the democratic values we cherish but advocating
a religious doctrine belongs in the
church and the home." The logic used by
the justices also bodes weil for the outcome
of other cases waiting in the wingsparticularly
the textbook cases pending in
Tennessee and Alabama, Shanker pointed
out. The AFT had argued against the Louisiana
law in an amicus curiae brief filed
before the Supreme Court.

TEEN PREGNANCY American
teenagers who are poor and lack basic
academic skills are almost six times more
likely to become pregnant than their more
affluent and academically successful peers,
concluded a new report by the Children's
Defense Fund. "Preventing Adolescent
Pregnancy: What Schools Can Do" found
that teens with Similar family incomes and
basic skills in reading and math-whether
white, black or Hispanic-have nearly identical
rates of teenage childbearing. To
decrease teen pregnancies, the report urges
that schools take measures to identify at-risk
youths as early as possible, Improve links
with parents and community Institutions and
incorporate life planning courses into the
curricula. For copies, send $4 to CDF, 122 C
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001.

NO. 40, JUNE 26, 1987

Cincinnati Teachers Back Carnegie Report

SUpport for Refonns Widen

Support among teachers for the
reforms advocated by the AfT and
others interested in professionalizing
teaching continues to grow.

In Cincinnati recently, a public forum
on the Carnegie Report, A Nation
Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century,
brought together corporate
leaders, superintendents of schools,
school board members, representatives
of parent-teacher associations and community
organizations, teacher union
leaders and others from throughout the
Cincinnati area to discuss the need for
education reform.

Spearheaded by the Cincinnati
Federation of Teachers (CFT), the
forum featured Marc Tucker, executive
director of the Carnegie Forum on
Education and the Economy.

"Marc's presence helped us to focus
the attention of the entire Cincinnati
community on the schools and teacher
professionalism," explained CfT pre .
dent Tom Mooney, adding that th
forum has helped build a broader ase
of support for reform among thos utside
the school community.

" A survey commissioned by the C
shows that Cincinnati teachers are
solidly behind the major reforms called
for in the Carnegie Forum's task force
report. Nearly 60 percent of the
teachers responding to the poll endorsed
the creation of a national certification
board for teachers. Also, 91.8
percent agreed or strongly agreed with
the career-ladder concept, which would
allow them to advance without having
to enter administration and leave
teaching.

When asked to rank possible criteria
for advancement on a career ladder,
"assessment of teaching skills" was
highest, with years of experience, advanced
education and level of certification
receiving some support.

Some 83.1 percent agreed that "standards
and criteria for effective teaching
should be determined by the teaching
profession rather than by professional

administrators. "

The teachers also supported the expansion
of peer evaluation and the involvement
of teachers in performance
review of their principals. Respondents
to the survey "feel teachers should
have a greater role in educational deqisions
and they support reforms in
teacher training and certification," read
a statement by poll researchers.

Teachers also clearly believe that
reducing class size is the most important
step in efforts to improve student
achievement and increase teacher
effectiveness.

Over 40 percent of Cincinnati
teachers said they have ~onsidered
leaving the school district or the
teaching profession during the past two
years.

"I was~IIi)iI_"_-".~
t ers considered leaving,"
eported Mooney. "Changes need to b
made."
One-third of the district's 3,200
teachers completed the IS6-question
survey.

Adminisfnltcrs
Lawsuit Dismissed

Ruling that the district's mentor
teacher program does not harmfully
affect school administrators, a New
York state judge h~ dismissed an administrator's
lawsuit against the
Rochester Teachers Association and the
city's school district.

The president of the Association of
Supervisors and Administrators of
Rochester sued last year, claiming that
the district's Peer Assistance Review
(PAR) program impinged upon administrators'
responsibilities and that
teachers were not certified to participate
in teacher evaluations. State
Supreme Court Justice Andrew Siracuse .

(Continued on page 2)

r '


a
Here's $150,000: Now reorganize the-·SchOOI

fl

four-yell'-olds. Eacb scbool has

'Teachers hungry for

n
n
been given a $50,000 planningthis kind of freedom.' grant this summer, and each will
get and additional $100,000 over

says Cincinnati AFJ'

the next year to be used as the

staff decides.

N
N
ext September, two Cin


"It's time to acknowledge that

n
n
cinnati schools will

our pRiSCnt delivery system is not

undergo dramatic

working for many srudents, " says

'I d

changes in order to give "higb


CFT president Tom Mooney.

risk" srudents a totally different "We have persistently low

-and successful.-experience of achievement, high failure and
schooL

drop-out rates in an entire set of

The Cincinnati Federation of schools. "
Teachers 'and district adminPart
of the problem has been a
istrators. have agreed on a pilot lack of investment by the district
project to n:structure two elemenin
educating disadvantaged sru-~
tary scbools to impnwe social8nd dents, "but money alone won't i!
academic skills and decrease (olve the problems," says"

drop-out rates among the "higb Mooney. "We have to be willing g

risk" students at the schools. to rethink the entire delivery sys-[Ii

Union and school system repre


tem~ org:tiondstaffing,. c::!j Gn...............=,................


sentatives have spent nearly a

[l
[l
ncu u~, _ san IDStruCIIO. .....eI} ...."~..,.II••01". __ . ~

year working out the details of the matertals." The demonstrallon

.............................................


j

experiment schools are being given the free-

When the two demonsb'ation dom to rethink the traditional kind of freedom this project munity. The Cinci1llllUi Post in an
schools open their doors in Sepdelivery
system, he notes. offers, anxious to be creative editorial said: "Unlike many toptember,
!bey will be featuring an The two demonstration once some red rape andover-reg-downplansforreform,tbiaOlleis
expanded staff to provide aII-day schools were selected on the basis u1ation are removed. .. ~and promising. In COIISiderkindergarten,
reduced class sizes of their staffs enthusiasm and During tbe summer, scbool ing it, the school board should
of between IS and 18 srudents, creativity and the extent to which leaders will plan services for sru-remember Owe!! Butler's [1Ormer

I

more visiting teacbers to work administrators, teachers, parents dents and prepare teachers for the chair ofProcter &: Gamble] ~


f'l

J' !
with students with serious attenand
the community appeared participatory management pro--ing: Given the blUlllD WIlle and
dance, behavior and social pr0bwilling
to work as a team. cess that parallels recommenda-social cost of educatiOlial fiilwe,

U :::?:n•.,......

...1... ...... lems, more social skiUs develop"
It was clear from the inte... tions by the Carnegie Rlrum on a community can make 110 beUI!t
ment programs, greaIer parental views that we hit a nerve." said Teaching as a Profession. investment in ill futunI !bill to.......... involvement in scbool operations Mooney. "Parents, teachers and The project bas drawn praise rescue its Iow-achimn, public

-, 1Rf:C2

................. and a Head Start program for-even principals are hungry for the from outside the education com-schools."


Voice of experience

mentors have been selected to In New York City. help out 80 internS. The project is
veteran teachers are nmniDll in 28 schools within L3

districts in New York City.

mentors for interns

"We bope to encourage experienced
senior teachers to remain in

WE
WE
n Brooklyn teacher the teacbing profession and to
intern Katbleen Gitimprove
the retention rate of _
tens is on release time teachers coming into the sys


r'
r'
from her class at P.S. 41, she can tem," says Ann Rosen, UFT pr0be
found in the classroom of menject
coordinator and a Brooklyn
tor Sondra Richman or those of elementary school teacher. "We
other experienced teachers, believe that through a collegial
.. viewing" their work, their program of this nature we can
methods and their style. The rest achieve these goah. ..
of her time is spent in her own Mentors are released three

classroom, with her assigned periods a week for eacb intern

I

j mentor Richman helping out with whom tbey work; tbe
In the jOint UFT-board of eduinterns,
who comprise regularly
cation mentor teacher project, appointed elementary scbool
wh ich was funded by the state for teachers, are released six periods
$1. 6 million, approximately 45 to work with the mentor. During
common release time [when
mentor and intem have the same
time off), tbe two spend-their

l

r .
time in conference and during
intern release time, the intern is
either visiting the mentor or

I
l J
Reading readiness: Get an early start

another experienced teacher in
. dergarten is not what of Readers" report issued last _ e<:1asa coUabontive stories, every object in the room and the schoo~ says Rosen. What the
it used to be: many year by the U. S. Department of As the teacher RlCords stories keep a plentiful supply of good intern and mentor do wben

~re youngsters today Education.
dictated by the group on the books. Children should not only they're in one another's classes

L j
already have the experience of "Researchers have demonblackboard,
chart paper or comlisten
to stories and watch adults fits into a plan of action that they
day care and pn:school not to sttated that early experience in puter. children learn about the read to them -they should also have agreed upon, she says.
mention "Sesame Stn:et" by the talking and learning about the conventions of language, such have the chance to hold the "Mostly it's Viewing so they can
time they first enter school. world and written language is as how words are composed and books themselves and imitate discuss it later. "
Many are alRiady comfortable more appropriate for developing the importance of the written adults reading. While temporary perdiem subworking
with unfamiliar adults reading skills," says the bookword
in communicating over e<:1aD dIscusIioII 01 emlta. stirutes are not yet eligible under
and already know the names and let time and space. Teachers should capitalize on the legislation for the mentoring
sounds of letters of the alphabet. A good "reading-readiness" eDally individual wrItfna, every opporrunity to engage programs, even though they are

ThUs the traditional activities program, says the booklet, One of the most effective ways children in thoughtful discusconsidered
to be the ones most in
of cutting and pasting, bopping includes such activities as: for children to learn about writsion,
to give them a chance to need of help, tbe Board of
and jumping may DO longer be eDaily ftIICIlIIi aInad. Listen
language is for them to write exercise their memories, reftect Regents bas asked that the law be
enough ra..many kindergll'tening
to • teacher helps themselves. When children do on experiences, to give comchanged
so TPDs can participue
teuers suggestS "Becoming. childml develop important readnot
feel constrained by requireplete
descriptions or teU next )'ell: Although all mentors
Nation of Readers: ImpJicatioas ing comprebenaion concepts; ments for corn:ct speUing or complete stories. selectM for this first )'ear pro-.
for Teachers," a _ booklet these benefits are greatest when penmanship. writing activities to "Becoming a Nation of Readgram
must h8'Ie at least five years

l j ~sttibuted by the AFr that children are active panicipants e~tend their knowledl!e of letter-er;: Im,,'ication. for Teoache,.... nfteachinq f'~f'fI'rip"r,. within th ....



Hide Document