Teacher evaluation proposal

Hide Document

c,

∑∑

' I E
.

Dallas Federation of Teachers
FL:cio

3631 Cedar Springs, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75219

Phone (214) 522-8455

November 26, 1984

Marilyn Rauth, Executive Director Educational Issues Department American Federation of Teachers 11 Dupont Circle, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Dear Marilyn: A note of thanks about the materials you continually send to us upon request. We are using many of them now in preparation for a variety of school board presentations. Enclosed is a proposal being presented to the school board on Thursday, Nov. 29, 1984, regarding establishing a new evaluation system. I would appreciate someone reading it (such as yourself) to let me know what pitfalls they see. If it1s possible to call me by Thursday, it would be appreciated. Sincerely,






REC'O

Maureen Peters President cc: Edgar Crook

ED. \SSUES

'\93A \∑.O\J ?, 9

Æ,

I

1

(

.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

'Submitted to:

The Dallas Independent School District Mr. Linus Wright

Gerieral Superintendent

3807 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75204 Telephone number 214/824-1620

Proposal Initiators:

Richard P. Shirley B.

Manatt, Professor Stow, Associate Professor (RISE)

Research Institute for Studies in Education College of Education Iowa State University Ames, Iowa

50011

Title of Project:

A Focused,

Total-Systems

Approach to Evaluating and Improving the Performance of Educational Professionals

Proposed Starting Date:

January

1, 1985,

Proposed Duration:

Proposed Budget:

37 , . $ 415 ' .
"

42 months

.

Endorsements:

1JA O∑ JOMl >" . J .
Richard P. Manatt Director and Principal Investigator

515/294-5521

∑chard'E. Hasbr Contracts and Grants Officer

515/294-5225

If,., oS'''''

<5'i

Co-Director

515/294-9995

.

. .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary Introduction Project Phases

∑

1 3

(Procedures)

9

Phase I--Preparational Phase II--Developmental Phase III--Operational Budget. Schedule of Payment Biographical Summaries References Exhibit

10
∑

17 18 24
. ∑

33 34

∑

40 41

∑

∑

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Successful management of schools is greatly affected by the nature and size of the organization in which they are situated (Harrison and Cage, 1984) . Just as effective classrooms are nested in effective

schools, effective schools are more likely to exist in well-managed school districts. Researchers and management practitioners have long

known that educational organizations are unique (Campbell, 1958; Miles, 1969) . Weick (1976, 198) has made much of the notion that educational

organizations are tied together frequently and loosely,∑ rather than tightly or densely. Such loose coupling arises from a lack of concensus

on educational goals, a low level of faculty interdependence and, most significantly for this project, lack of systematic monitoring and evaluation in schools. Of course, 100s∑ coupling also occurs because of

input variability arising primarily from differences in student ability. Loosely coupled systems promote adaptations, giving stability to the system but also limitin g the benefits of coordination. Thus, boards of education, general and area superintendents, and various instructional change agents face the problem of how to facilitate instructional improvement in an organization which, by its , very nature, limits the impact of their efforts toward coordination and systematization (Harrison and Cage, 1984) . This specifically was the flt need of the leaders of the Dallas Independent School District when they sought to join forces with the School Improvement Model researchers at Iowa State University. Over the

past decade, professors Manatt and Stow and their colleagues have helped

2 numerous districts and independent schools improve their performance appraisal procedures and management information systems; in short, creating a more tightly coupled or highly focused effort (Manatt and Stow, 1984; Stow and Sweeney, 1981; Look and Manatt, 1984) . See Exhibit

for a display of Computer-Assisted Teacher Evaluation/Supervision (CATE/S) . The proposed project is intended to provide a focused, total systems approach to' evaluating and improving the performance of educational professionals .. for a district of 445 administrators and 6900 teachers via the following components: 1. Short-term and temporary modification of existing evaluation procedures for the next year, 2. Consulting advice and creation of instruments and procedures mandated by House Bill 72 (Texas Legislature, 1984) , 3. Creation of a completely new, total-systems approach to performance appraisal which is data-based, hooked to compensation, and which can he operated using microcomputers at the campus level with data transmission via modems to the district's mainframe computer,
4.

Finally, and perhaps most important, training all levels of management and selected teachers to operate the system and improve performance of all educational personnel.

This is a massive undertaking, hence the timeline for the project will be 42 months.

3

INTRODUCT ION The Dallas Independent Schools, in common with many large, urban school districts, was confronted with a great number of problems in the late sixties and most of the decade of the seventies. The.twin issues

of excellence and equity have always been intertwined with the concerns of a rapidly shifting population, student achievement declines, and the continuing search for the financial resources to provide a sound education for all children. The Dallas Independent Schools are

uncommon, however, in their continuing determination and success in meeting and solving these problems. Dallas is always experimenting,

always striving, and always in the vanguard of public education, both in Texas and nationwide. ' It was that tradition, plus the opportunities and

challenges inherent in the new Texas School Reform Law (H. B. 72, 1984) , that led the district to enter into a dialog with the School Improvement Model team at the Reseach Institute for Studies in Education (R ISE) at Iowa State University. After preliminary discussions between Professor

Manatt and John Santillo, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services, a group of Dallas School leaders met with the RISE personnel and Virgil Lagomarcino, Dean of the College of Education, to discuss te feasibility of a joint effort to develop a Focused, Total-Systems Approach to Evaluating and Improving the Performance of Educational Professionals in the district (October 1-2, 1984) .
∑

During the meeting,

the Dallas team outlined the existing performance evaluation and compensation procedures and described the anticipated changes in the

4 appraisal process components and the career ladder provisions resulting from the passage of H. B. 72. The RISE personnel, on their part, described the progress made in the past decade by their researchers in developing valid, reliable, and legally discriminating performance appraisal systems. (See Exhibit. )

Professors Manatt, Stow, Sweeney, and others at RISE were not unacquainted with career ladders, merit pay, and incentive plans either, having worked with the states of Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, California, New York; th∑ Department of Defense Dependent Schools; and the Fairfax County Schools in Virginia on just such endeavors. Moreover, all of the Iowa State University professors and staff personally work under a differentiated compensation and/or merit system. Subsequent to that meeting and further exploration of the issues by the district personnel, a request for a proposal was made. Specifically,

the project was to respond to the following perceived needs of the school district. 1. Short-term and temporary modification of the existing teacher performance evaluation instrument and procedures for the 1984-85 school year. Similar changes are needed for

administrator evaluation and the instruments for evaluating 23 other job specialties. 2. Consulting and advice regarding the changes needed to comply with the dictates of H. B. 72 that invlve performance appraisal, training, and certification of appraisers and career ladder screening and differentiated compensation.
∑

5

3.

The specification of, and provisions for, a replacement for the existing performance evaluation system. The new

mechanism. is to be a total systems approach,,ith a data base, ∑

focus that overcomes the us

organization's management, and

:O

COUP1

'

Of a school

enered' in microcomputers

at the campus level and mainframe computer-based at the central administration level. 4. Training for all personnel involved was considered of paramount importance; training for the Board of Trustees and the Council to use the Management Information System to be developed; training for area offices to be sure the system is

ladder promotions, and provide remediation where needed. In regard to performance evaluation of professionals and career ladder provisis, each of the above needs must be met within the m.nd tes o



Kar= )

W

The project envisions going much beyond those

minimums, h weve to reach the status of a data-based, total system for evaluation, compensation, and remediation or removal of those personne'l performing below district standards. The proposed project is more than just an updating of an appraisal system; it is an articulated administrator and teacher performance evaluation system coupled with powerful training components designed to

6

upgrade the performance of all professional employees in order to improve the district's instructional outcomes. As such, the 42-month

endeavor is a total-systems approach based upon five years of basic research in the School Improvement Model (SIM) project directed by Dick Manatt and Shirley Stow (Manatt et al. , Occasional Papers, 1980-84).

Several basic questions must be answered in order to determine what approach, or combination of approaches, for performance appraisal will be appropriate for this dynamic and striving public school district; viz. , 1. What are the criteria for effective teaching? tion? 2. other specialties? administra

How can the evaluation system enhance the existing staff development and curriculum improvement activities?

3.

How shall the district monitor, 'measure, and report performance?

4.

How does the district plan to help administrators and teachers improve after evaluation?

5.

How can such mass!ve amounts of performance information best be captured, stored, transmitted, decision-making? analyzed, and use for

The rationale for the e.ntire project may be best explained by the functions of the mutual-benefit evaluation systems previously developed by the RISE team. They are:

7

1.

To improve teaching and administration through the identification of ways to change teaching systems, management systems, teaching environments, or teaching behaviors.

2.

To supply information that will lead to the modification of assignments, such as placements in other positions, promotions, and terminations.

3.

To protect students from incompetence, and teachers from unprofessional administrators.

4.
5.

To reward superior . performance. To validate the school syst m' s teacher/administrator selection process.

6.

To provide a basis for teachers' and administrators' career planning and professional development.

' Methodology created by Dick Manatt and his team of performance appraisal consultants will be used to answer the performance evaluation questions. The methods will include, but will not be limited to,

advisory committee planning of system specifications; development of three philosophies for the district--evaluation, administration, and education; critical work activities (CWAs) identified for each administrative role via systems analysis; position descriptions updated and situational status detemined by interview teams and evaluation; supervisory skills enhanced by in-district inteventions provided by the consulting team.

8 The proposed Dallas Independent School District Peformance Evaluation System would be unique in two very important ways. strong commitment to participative necessary. First, a

p lanning

and involvement will be

This helps all prof essionals grow, but, more important, it The second unique

provides "ownership" of the components created.

feature of this endeavor is the provision of staff development activities to ensure that district administrators can operate the program after the consultants leave. Board members, teachers, and

administrators alike will: .pe given common opportunities to "try" each subsystem in a nonthreatening learning mode bef ore implementation and af ter the f irst trial cycle. This should provide a model process and
,

system which will be recognized in Texas and nationally as a better way o do the always dif f icult task of evaluating performance and determining compensation in a school district. Although it is proposed that a conSUlting team headed by Dick Manatt will assist the Dallas Independent School District in the development of the various evaluation systems, this project is seen as a joint eff ort in which the district provides on-site coordination f or the development of all activities, with writing, training, and ata processing support provided by the consulting team. The RISE team will

be resp onsible f or the delivery of research data, gathering of demographic data, computer analysis of f ield test data, development of training protocols, training of evaluators, orientation of teachers and administrative staf f , and such other duties as may be mutually agreed

9 upon by both parties. Maximum use will be made of Iowa State University

airplanes to reduce costs of travel. The following plan has been developed on the premise that high level performance by all professional groups is absolutely essential if the district's goals are to be achieved. Since the district' s future

goals are important to performance appraisal and compensation, it is imperative that all changes correspond to the long-range planning the district intends to do on its own. PROJECT PHASES (PROCEDURES)
A 42-month timeline is envisioned.

Three distinct phases will be Project

necessary, viz. , preparational, developmental, and operational. priorities are to include (in rank order) :
1.

A six-month, intensive endeavor to upgrade existing practice and to help Dallas contribute to the state initiatives (H. B. 72)

2.
3.

Teacher performance evaluation Administrator performance evaluation Superintendent and Board Performance Evaluation Creation of the data processing system to maintain and report information for all of the above

4.
5.

Training, assessment, and feedback to improve all of these components will be absolutely essential.

10

PHASE I--PREPARATIONAL 1. Richard P. Manatt will be designated project director. Shirley Stow will be Co-director and Supervisor of Consultants. Ellen Look, Jim Sweeney, and other will serve

as lead consultants. 2. All instrument development and data analysis will be under the direction of Libby Bilyeu.
3.

Research assistants will be selected t o add racial balance to the team.

4.
5.

The project coordinator will be a district administrator. Planning and implementation of the project will be accomplished through the formation of a district stakeholders' committee. The committee will be chaired by

the project coordinator and will include (but not be limited to) the following members: a. b. c. d. e. one member of the Board of Education, three citizens, four administrators, six classroom teachers, and two students.
u∑ (J

0

(

The committee shall be empowered to adjust its membership and to designate subcommittees as the circumstances demand.
∑

It

will be responsible for the review and modification of the district' s existing plans and implementation of all committee

11 TABLE 1 . Stakeholders' Committee Plan

Phase I

Activity Select committees* Survey and interview to determine adminis trative and instruc tional "situation"

Question/Topics

II

Subcommittees set specifications for teacher and adminis trator performance evaluation

Steering Committee (Subcommittee Chairpersons) SUBCOMMITIEES; 1. Philosophy and Objectives 2. Performance Areas and Criteria 3. Operational Procedures 4. Forms and Records 5. Compensation/ladder 6. Test and Field Test

1.

Steering Committee

a. b. c. d. e.

Create/manage timeline Inform/consult superintendent and Board Detetmine consultant usage Determine perfol'mance vs. input output evaluation Inform/consult staff Why evaluate administrators? teachers? Shall we use multiple evaluators? What constitutes good administration in this district? effective teaching?

2.

Philosophy and Objectives

a. b. c.

3.

Performance Areas and Criteria

Aids administration in determining: a. What performance areas count? b. What about leadership vs. management? What specific criteria with these c. areas? Benchmark of teaching effectiveness d.

*AII committee activities must be guided by the constraints of Texas Statutes.

12 Table 1 (Continued)

Phase 4.

Activity Operational Procedures a. b. c. d. e. f. 5. Forms and Records a. b. c. d. e. f. 6. Test and Field Test a. b. c. d. e.

Question/Topics If we use mUltiple evaluators, how do we do it? What should the cycle be? What should constitute an appraisal conference? How should feedback and help be provided? How do we use climate data? How do we meet ,the state' s guide lines from H.B. 72? Analysis of system How do we streamline paperwork? Do we need separate documents for formative and summative data? Should there be a program evaluation form? How do we transmit and store data? What∑ ,.separate reports do we need for compensation/career ladder? What constitutes an appropriate test of the new system? , What, are our criteria of validity, reliability, discrimination power? When should we begin the field test? How high shall our standards be? What orientation and training is needed for the evaluators?

III

Set philosophies; determine criteria to be used Describe cycle to be used Draft forms and records Plan cut-and-try experiment

Inform all subcommittees of gUidelines. Strive for agreement: teachers, admin istrators, Board, students, community. Orient evaluators and eva1uatees. Conferences, observations, coaching. H9w to document what happens--specify performance' changes needed, give credit for success! ' Who? What? When? how many dollars? Where? Why? For

13 Table 1 (Continued)

Phase

Activity Field test, review, rewrite E stablish and improve

Question/Topics What worked? What did not? What more do we need? What should be area based? central office based? Operate staff interventions: skills training for evaluators, improve teacher/administrator performance, check against previous evaluation; orient, orient, and reorient!

" '; All committee activities must be guided by the , constraints of ,Texas Statutes.

14 TABLE 2. Suggeste&Activities for Years 0 and 1

PERSON/WORK DAYS TO JULY 1, 1985 ACTIVITIES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. IN DISTRICT 2 2 ON CAMPUS

6. 7. 8.

Plan the creation of a stakeholders' committee Provide liaison and advice to Texas education office planners Plan the articulation with the Texas plan (H.B. 72) Modify existing DISD: . instruments and activities to serve for this school year Plan for the creation of a new data based total systems approach to performance appraisal and compensation (DISD and Texas specifications) Train Council, Area Offices, and principals to operate" the enhanced system Conduct stakeholders meetings Provide progress reports to councif and board

2 2

4

20

4 2 4 1

20 10 4 2

JULY 1, 1985-JUNE 30, 1986 (YEAR 1) 9. 10 Complete plan for new data-based, total systems approach to performance appraisal and compensation. The components to include but not be limited to: a. Customtailored appraisal instruments using the Texas specifications for categories and response modes (e.g. , "unsatisfactory" to "clearly out standing"). b. Procedures of appraisal to meet the district-specific needs of Dallas but to also serve the career ladder requirements of H. B. 72∞(viz., not fewer than two appraisers, the use of master teachers, the specified conferences with the appraisee.) ∑2 c. Compensation differentials as desired by DISD Board of Trustees. 2 40

5 10

15

Table 2 (Continued)

PERSON/WORK DAYS JULY 1, 1985-JUNE 30, 1986 (YEAR 1) 10. IN DISTRICT ON CAMPUS

11.

12. 13. 14.

15. 16.

Development of training programs for all administrators and teacher evalu ators to operate the system (conferenc ing, diagnosing, remedial activities, identification of the required performance to the next level) 2 Development of training programs for evaluation and improving the performance of special categories of employees not detailed in H. a: 72, e.g., counselors, 2 media specialists, nurses. Development of a refined system for evaluating the Board of Trustees and 1 superintendents Development and creation of an evaluation 4 system for all administrators (445) Planning and" development of a data base (both micro and mainframe computers) for maintaining all performance data and report making 2 Planning and development of procedures to measure all building climates (183 buildings) 2 Continue progress reports to the stake holders' committee, council, and Board 1 of Trustees

10

10 4 10

40 10 2

16

responsibilities designated i n the plan (see Table 1). Manatt will serve as chief consultant for the steering committee. 6. See Table 2 for Year 1 activities.

Dr.

Planning data will be gathered by selected members of the consulting team following the acceptance of this proposal. Subjects to be included in all training, administrative systems analysis, and interviewing include those holding all administrative positions from the rank of assistant principal through general sperintendent. evaluated include: Role incumbents to be

Board of Trustees--9; Adffiinistrators--

445; Counselors--221; Social workers--56; Psychologists--34; Media specialists/librarians--186; and 6, 900 teachers. The

planning stage will not be free standing; some training, data processing, and instrument modification will be necessary from the outset to serve the district during the stateinfluenced changes of spring 1985. Table 2 contains

anticipated, early developmental stages above the broken line. (Year "0") . 7. Subsequent to the acceptance of this proposal, workshop sessions with the stakeholders' committee will be devoted to

the topic, Performance Appraisal of Educational Professionals. Additional sessions (to be held as soon as

feasible) will include an' overview of the philosophy and objectives of evaluation for the improvement of educational

17 performance, behaviors to be Gvaluated, and specific criteria to be used. Participants will be trained to function as Ground rules for reaching

systems planning team members. agreement will be set. provided.

A thorough review of H.B. 72 will be

Administrative staff may be involved as desired.

On-site leadership for the activities will be provided by Dr. Manatt and/or members of the consul-ting team.
8.

The spring of 1985 will be devoted to initial planning with the steering committee with on-site responsibilities for the consultants as needed. Some Saturday work may be essential A concentrated period
"

for a prompt start-up of the project.

of work will be necessary in the summer of 1985 and each subsequent summer. PHASE II-DEVELOPMENTAL During the 1985-86 school year, preliminary drafts of the performance evaluation plan, philosophy, objectives, performance areas, and criteria will be developed. The

1.

operational procedures and prototypic forms and reords for evaluation/compensation will be created. 2. During the spring of 1986, a full array of administrative systems-analysis techniques will be brought to bear on the problems of administrator performance evaluation.

1.

It's January and the next election campaign will be in full swing soon. It's anticipated that the EA will be flooding the schools with flyers warning teachers that the AFT supports merit pay for teachers. How can building stewards neutralize this allegation? DISCUSSION: a. b. Steward needs to anticipate the issue and decide the appropriate time to address it. Steward must know the following: What is AFT's position on merit pay and career ladders and what's the difference? What is the rationale for this position (how can it be "sold" to teachers in terms of what's to be gained and lost through different strategies)? What are the negative results of NEA positions? How can this information best be presented to teachers and how will-timing affect its impact?

c. d.

2.

A second-year teacher walks into the teachers' lounge on the verge of "losing it." She announces to anyone who will listen that she knows she is a good teacher, but she can't take it anymore. In her last class Johnny was doing a balancing act on the radiator, Mary and Cindy talked throughout the leson, a paper airplane hit her in the back of the neck, and on and on. She is going to turn in her resignation tomorrow. What, if anything, should the building steward do? DISCUSSION: a. Many people will respond that the steward should sit down and talk to the person. However, the person's problems persist and without help, the teacher has little chance of recovering discipline in the classroom and surviving. In addition to compassion, help has to be provided. In an ER&D site, expertise is immediately available. In others, the steward could find a compatible teacher effective in this area to work with the teacher or seek out a college faculty person who may provide assistance. Stewards should be aware that excellent resources are available from the Educational Issues Department The conclusion should be that rather than walking out of the room or simply lending an ear, assistance should be provided.

b.

c. d.

3.

It's April and the next closely contested CB election will be held in mid-May. The building steward on Tuesday noticed that the Federation bulletin board consisted only of campaign flyers, while the Association bulletin board also included slick posters and statements on professional issues. This difference in school bulletin boards had existed so long. the steward noticed and thought about it for the first time. What should be done. considering a call to a busy union office evoked only a reply that no similar posters were available? DISCUSSION: a. Is this bulletin board situation acceptable or unacceptable and why?

b.

Creativity: 1. A quick thinker knows AFT-QuEST promotional materials are available and uses them on bulletin boards, even if it's unlikely teachers in this school will attend. 2. AFT professional issues booklets can be posted or left on tables stamped "Compliments of the CFT Professional Issues Committee." The building steward can collect professional 3. articles, charts, etc. and use the same stamp. Persistence may be important here in convincing the local leadership that this need should be addressed in all schools and, if necessary, the local should become involved in developing bullet board kits on professional issues/image. A case can be built for foresight. A school committee could develop attractive postings specific to faculty concerns.

c.

d.

4.

In September, the principal approached a very good regular teacher and asked to place three disabled students in his classroom. The teacher was more than willing. Since that time, eight more disabled children were added to the class. The teacher's pleas to the principal that the range of special needs in this class now made learning for any students impossible was met with a shrug of the shoulders and advice "to do yo'ur best." Other teachers, according to the principal, couldn't handle it. Hearing of this teacher's anxiety and despair, what short-term and long-term solutions might the building steward offer? DISCUSSION: a. Short term: Provide appropriate AFT booklets which in clude a series on how to handle various disabilities in the regular classroom; if children with learning dis abilities are involved, have a group meet, view and discuss AFT's film/videotape, "The ACB's of Teaching the Learning Disabled Child;" set up a small problem-solving group of a few excellent teachers who brainstorm with the affected teacher on how to cope with the situation until real relief comes; seek assistance from college of education faculty. Long term: Consider grievance possibilities; use IEP process and requirements to your benefit (consult various levels of AFT, if necessary); union contacts with admin istrators, parents and disability advocacy groups.

b.

5.

Reading is not a systemwide problem, but in your middle school many students are reading at pre-primer to fourth grade reading levels. As the building steward, you've heard many teachers express concern about this situation but the principal believes in social promotion and feels it would damage the school's public image if parents discovered their children could not read. Is the building steward powerless to ddress this concern of teachers? If not, what action should be taken? DISCUSSION: a. Is it the union's, and therefore the steward's, responsi bility to intervene? Why or why not?

b. c.

A union faculty committee is the best vehicle for dealing with this problem. Teachers can assess the extent of the reading de ficiencies, what conditions would be necessary to remediate, what is in their power to do as individuals and as a faculty and what would require administrative action and then devise strategies for ending the status quo. They can also gather information on the negative consequences of social promotion. What are possible sources of support for resources? For political action?

d. 6.

A new evaluation system has been established in your school system. Special teacher trainng sessions were provided prior to implementation, and most teachers were satisfied that procedurally the system was fair and equitable. As the building steward, you've picked up that teachers, however, don't really understand the criteria on which they'll be judged and are very anxious about the meaning of new terms, such as overlapping, momentum, smoothness, thrusts and dangles. What, if anything, should you do as building steward? DISCUSSION: An exploratory committee would be useful here. What is the basis of the new criteria and terminology? (The likely answer is educational research.) Is it likely that our staff is doing these things but the terms are new to them? (Yes. ) What could we do to make our staff comfortable with the new jargon? (Workshops by knowledgeable people, articles, AFT publications, etc.) Following this, would ongoing teacher discussions of what these criteria mean and how they can best be implemented be useful?

7.

As you start school in September, you know that a referendum will be held in the spring to float a new tax levy for the "starving school system" and that even if it passes, some schools may have to be closed. Your own school has suffered from poor community and business relationships and may be a prime candidate for closure. Is this problem bigger than a single school or is there something you as building steward could do to increase the odds you and your colleagues can return to this preferred site next year? DISCUSSION: Obviously the union needs to be heavily involved in seeing the tax levy passes but in this situation these teachers may be benefitted by going an extra mile. A faculty union committee could be established to develop strategies to im prove the image and support of this school. Questions:
o o o

o

How do we reach out to the immediate community and business? Can we do a needs assessment of their concerns? How can we mobiIize"our faculty to address these needs, ' e.g., speaking at organizational meetings, devising innova tive programs to bring additional resources into the schools, holding open hearings, making more phone contacts, etc. Are there other union-initiated programs our school could plug into?

Hide Document