Who Should Evaluate Teachers? Teachers Should

The idea of peer review for teachers has been around for a generation. It's controversial, but mostly in the places that don't use it. Places such as Montgomery Country, Maryland, and 80 other districts that have strong programs consider them successful. The Los Angeles Unified School District and its unions are considering bringing a robust version of peer review to Los Angeles. They should -- it's a good idea.

I admit bias about peer review. I've seen it work in elementary and secondary schools. As a university professor I have been subjected to it. But the immediate reason to favor it in L. A. is that peer review offers solutions to two problems within Los Angeles Unified. It helps create and retain good teachers. And it gets those who can't or won't teach out of the classroom and off the payroll.

The existing peer review programs differ somewhat, but in general, here's how they work:

• A governing board of teachers and administrators oversees the whole program. It's not the property of district, the teacher's union, or the administrator's union. The composition and powers of the governing board are often described in the labor contracts or in memorandum of agreement between the unions and district.
• A team of trained teachers coaches and assists the teachers being reviewed and presents evaluative findings to the governing board.
• These "supervising teachers," as they are called in some districts, are generally released from classroom duties, either full- or part-time.
• Generally, all novice teachers are assigned to peer review during their probationary period. A supervising teacher is assigned to each of them.
• Administrators, teachers, or the union can nominate an experienced but underperforming teacher for intervention by the peer review process. Before deciding to intervene, the governing board must decide whether there is a good cause.
• After a period of coaching and intervention, the supervising teachers and/or the principal present their findings to the governing board regarding retention of the teacher. These are based on standards the board has adopted for all teachers. The peer review governing board makes a recommendation to the superintendent, and the superintendent to the school board.

How tough-minded are teachers going to be? From what we know, tougher than the current system. Fewer than 2 percent of novice teachers in Los Angeles are actually denied tenure, although a larger percentage are "counseled out," and encouraged to resign. (There are no good estimates for that number.) In Toledo, Ohio, (34,000 students) which has had a peer review process since the early 1980s, the percentage ranges from 3 percent to 13 percent, depending on the year. The program also recommended dismissal of a dozen teachers over the last five years. While these numbers are not huge, and are subject to criticism they represent a significant advancement over the state of practice in Los Angeles.

But the key to peer review is not to see how many teacher scalps can be nailed to the wall; it's to improve the quality of teaching. "Good teachers aren't born--they evolve," said United Teachers Los Angeles leaders in a recent commentary piece. Peer review pushes evolution along. By any reasonable measure, peer review provides a more thorough support system than principals are able to provide: more time in coaching, more specific criticism, attention to a known body of teaching standards.

Peer review also forces expert teachers to become explicit about their craft and the art of teaching. A great deal of practical teaching knowledge remains tacit, locked up in the heads of experienced master teachers. These are not the textbook, Teaching 101, skills but nuanced knowledge about when to recognize that a student is "getting it," or how to reach disconnected or difficult child. The coaching processes inherent in peer review require these expert teachers to communicate this tacit knowledge to others.

At the school level, teacher voice about what constitutes quality teaching or effective approach instruction will be key to the success of the newly approved Pilot Schools, where important decisions about budget and curriculum will be made within the school.

At an institutional level, peer review is a way that teacher knowledge gets heard and honored. The ability to develop voice around what constitutes quality teaching, and the courage to act on that voice, gives teachers credibility in other venues, too.

Nationwide there is a renewed interest in teacher peer review. Jennifer Goldstein, who taught in Compton before becoming a professor at City University of New York, has produced the first book length description of how peer review works based on a study of a California district. Professor Susan Moore Johnson and her students at Harvard University have analyzed many peer review programs, and they have posted answers to many operating questions. Links to these and other peer review sites can be found on my web site.

Peer review fits into an overall revamping of how human talent is used in schools: evaluation, tenure, career pathways, and support mechanisms. LAUSD is tussling with these issues now, with the school board scheduled to discuss the contested report of its Teacher Effectiveness Task force on April 27. It's an idea whose time has come.

 

 

 

Comments

[Jennifer Goldstein]

09:33 PM on 04/20/2010

The theme of skepticism posted here is understandable. Lenny 25, TFT, Soliel-- it is absolutely understandable that you envision a politicized peer review program, where those lead teachers with evaluative responsibility "play ball" with administrators and lack the courage to seriously evaluate other teachers. However, I have to chime in with Charles Kerchner. That's simply not what has played out on the ground in the districts where peer review exists. In my book-- which, by the way Soliel, had the working title of "Courage and Complexity in Teacher Evaluation"-- I document that across four years of program implementation, the lead teachers (PAR coaches) removed 10-12.5 percent of the new teachers and almost all veterans with whom they were working. These figures are consistent with other peer review programs. And, as Chuck points out, while these figures are sometimes criticized as not high enough, they are without question phenomenally higher than the number of teachers who are dismissed by administrators with traditional teacher evaluation. And these figures result from a substantive review backed by a year of intensive support, rather than a reductionist assessment based merely on student test scores--valuable as those may be as part of the picture.

[Lenny25]

04:31 PM on 04/16/2010

www.perdaily.com. jOur take on what makes a good teachers and why that is presently thwarted:

http://www.perdaily.com/2010/04/good-teachers-are-one-of.html#more

[Tresco]

03:42 PM on 04/16/2010

Sure, make any cosmetic change you want. It's all good. When you can't attract or retain good people in the system this will be a fart in the thrunderstorm. California is bleeding out teachers and the supply is dwindling.

[Lenny25]

01:04 PM on 04/16/2010

While teacher peer review appears to be an excellent alternative to what presently exists, the problem with is that it would overlay the existing dysfunctional reality of how power and perks are allocated in places like LAUSD. Those lead teachers, master teachers, or others charged with performing the evaluation process would have achieved this status not by their own excellence determined by an objective standard, but by willingness to function as surrogates for administration.

Before the present economic disaster, 50% of baby boomer teachers were schedule to retire in the next 5 years. This created a huge deficit in the teaching profession that when it came down to it was more concerned with warm bodies to fill these teaching positions than quality teachers given recognition as such by society. Groucho Marx once said, "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member." While there are many notable exceptions to this rule in the teaching profession, sadly, this opinion remains true of present day LAUSD teachers.

Before teacher peer review can work, there must be a much clearer notion of what it means to be a peer with the assurance that dynamic teaching and not the ability to play ball takes precedence.

[corwin]

06:10 PM on 04/14/2010

I guess the old Latin phrase "quis custodiet ipso custodes?' applies here. Most communities aren't enamored enough of the quality of work done by local teachers to even consider this seriously. Since the system is collapsing, and kids are receiving poor education , there will probably be moe statistical evaluations and less (if possible) peer review.As with any guild type union(AMA, ABA , etc) the teachers union is primarily interested in their members well being. (Ajnd their members aren't students.)

[Charles Kerchner]

10:51 PM on 04/14/2010

Ya! It is not unreasonable to think of peer review as a foxes in henhouse. It could go wrong and be self serving. But in practice it hasn't. This is one of the odd circumstances in which economic theory suggests that the idea shouldn't work, but what we know about actual practice suggests that it does.

[Jennifer Goldstein]

09:12 PM on 04/20/2010

As Chuck notes below, existing peer review programs have demonstrated what he and Julia Koppich found many years ago: the progressive teacher unions involved with peer review have decided that it is important to defend TEACHING, not just teachers.

[nypoet22]

05:30 PM on 04/14/2010

could you tell this to the governor of florida please? by friday the 16th of april, he needs to veto legislation that evaluates teachers mainly based on student standardized test scores. basing 50% of pay-raises and the decision to fire a teacher on how their students score on a standardized test, is not a good idea. peer evaluation would be a great tool to get poor teachers out of the classroom.

the honorable charlie crist, governor of florida:
(850)-488-4441
[e-mail]

[TFT]

05:26 PM on 04/14/2010

Teachers are constantly trying to get in good with administration. Politics. Peer revue is more political than anything I have ever seen in schools.

Just sayin'...

[Soliel]

05:19 PM on 04/14/2010

Um, I don't think that would be strong enough.

Most teacher's are too polite to give true reviews and how many of them would be courageous enough to review their colleagues they have to sit with in the lunch room? And how about "I'll be quiet about your faults if you are quiet about mine"?

I am sorry...it's like the fox guarding the hen house.

Parents must have their say. Parents are often the ones who care the most because their children are feeling the direct effects of a bad teacher. If enough parents complain...there should be action.

[cjaco]

08:18 PM on 04/14/2010

Parents could be involved, but only a small percentage are actually involved with their child's education as it is. Some parents have bias' and go after teachers because their little angel has never received a bad grade - like a B - until they got a teacher that holds them accountable to do the work and follow directions, or won't put up with their little angel's behavior in their classroom. These parent's will be the first to advocate getting rid of that "bad" teacher. Parent's also could care less about all the students in the class - it's all about their kid (as it should be). So how can all parents objectively judge a teacher?

[Charles Kerchner]

10:54 PM on 04/14/2010

I have to say that I thought that this would happen, too: that teachers would lack the courage to be tough with their underperforming colleagues. I thought that till I saw teachers who were willing to "call the question" as they say in Rochester, NY. I've seen teacher union leaders be tougher than the principals on the peer review governing boards.

[KMel]

04:59 PM on 04/14/2010

This is a good idea, but I agree...it needs to go father in some areas, and be tethered in others:

1. No person who holds a teaching credential should be excluded from teaching at least one class a day. And not an honors or AP class...a basic, middle of the road class. And this includes administrators or any else with an out-of-classroom position.

2. This type of peer-review needs to continue, not just be something that new teachers participate in.

I also think teachers should be paid more, and that pay should be based on degree's held and innovation in the classroom, rather than fake salary points and biased test scores. You want the best and the brightest teaching your children? Then you have to do what every other organization does that recruits top talent- you have to pay more.

[jcwtts1]

04:20 PM on 04/14/2010

This is a good step, but it needs to go further. We need to go to a university tenure system. First tenure can be granted 5 years in, if you don't get it, try again after 7, if you still do get it, bye. That is a tried and true process. Let the various departments in a school system grant tenure to people who are doing good work.

J

[RobinSeattle]

01:21 PM on 04/14/2010

How do you feel about one proposal I would like to see enacted, the abolition of school boards, who are roadblocks to innovation and are sources of corruption and administrative incompetence, and have each campus operated by the teachers who work at them? Do you see that as a workable idea?

Thanks.