By Anne L. Bryant
05/04/04 -- This column begins with a true and tragic story, which I wish were unique. It is not.
The following quotes are from a school board member who sent an e-mail through our School Board of Tomorrow online network of school board members:
"I never knew being a school board member would be like this. We began our school year with a 49-day teachers strike." The teachers eventually went back to work under last year's teachers contract because of a court injunction.
The message goes on to describe how the board members and superintendent were "vilified in the news media by the union," and the district's reserve account dropped 50 percent due to strike-related expenses and decreased student enrollment.
"It gets worse," the board member writes. "Three of the five school board members were voted out of office a few months ago. Three new board members had several unions' support and with lots of cash, media support, and manpower, they easily won their elections."
"Next, a recall petition was filed against the remaining two board members -- one of them being me," he says. A superior court judge threw out nine of the 10 complaints listed in the recall petition, but one issue is still pending.
"They started this process without even having a board meeting," the message continues. The new board members brought in a full-time consultant and voted to buy out the superintendent. "All of this happened because the original five board members wanted to improve student performance -- not simply pay teachers more money."
According to this board member, teachers in the district had been among the highest paid in the state for many years, while student test scores were close to the state average.
This kind of true tale as told to me by a school board member drives me crazy. As I read his story, I immediately sympathized with this good citizen who was nearly railroaded out of public service simply because he tried to do what was right for the children of the community. The board's proposal might have been radical, but it was right, nevertheless.
What these board members tried to do was link teacher performance, evaluation, and pay to student achievement. Did he and other board members use the right strategies or processes? I don't know. But the concept to reward teachers for helping children achieve is the right thing to do.
Fast forward to Denver, Colo., where in the last month the teachers voted to do the right thing. On a margin of 59 percent to 41 percent, members of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association agreed to a new performance evaluation system that ties compensation to the district's goal of raising student achievement.
Under the new system, called ProComp, teachers' pay increases would be tied to higher test scores among their students, along with successful evaluations and new skills that support academic achievement in the classroom.
The new compensation plan would be mandatory for teachers hired after January 2006. Current teachers would have a seven-year window in which they could choose to join the new system or remain in the existing salary system. Voters now must approve a $25 million property-tax hike to pay for it.
The idea of having Denver teachers' pay tied to students' academic achievement began with a pilot program five years ago. The final evaluation of that program, issued in January, found that when teachers in the pilot had specific, challenging goals for academic achievement, their students were more likely to demonstrate higher levels of achievement.
The approval of the ProComp program in Denver is an excellent example of a school board, superintendent, teacher union, and community foundation working together to make a difference. And, assuming voters pass the tax increase, what a difference it could make.
Instead of a union and school board having an us-versus-them mentality, Denver has a school team focused on raising student achievement. Instead of having a union-bought school board election with the union trying to get its own representatives on the board, the union and school board are working together to focus on the very reason they're all there -- increasing student achievement.
Okay, I can hear my colleagues at the AFT and NEA wondering whether Anne has turned against them. (The National Education Association opposed the ProComp plan, according to Education Week.)
No, I can reassure my union colleagues; I have not "turned against" your higher and more noble objectives. But I do not believe that a union should be able to buy school board elections. Sure it is the "democratic way." Anyone can "buy" an election. But that does not mean it's right.
There is already a process to negotiate labor's perspectives versus management's. It's called contract negotiations. Are there possible alternative models to a labor-management concept? Perhaps there are, and I am open to exploring those models. But while we have this one, let's work to make it work fairly.
Okay, I've come clean. I do not believe that teacher organizations should be able to finance school board seats or have too much influence over school board elections.
Should school boards create a dialogue with teachers on critical issues like district goals, standards, assessments, and curriculum? Yes. Should school boards leave to teachers and principals pedagogical issues, best practices, discipline, and school budget issues? Yes.
But when it comes to the primary governance role of the district, the advantage of the school board is that it represents the entire community -- the true owners of our schools. It looks out for all children, not just those with the most active parents or those in certain sections of the district.
We must avoid the single-issue person on a school board. A board must work to focus on raising the achievement of all of the students.
The approach taken in Denver differs greatly from the situation described in the e-mail I quoted from earlier. Here is a school board and a teachers group who are betting that incentives to improve teacher performance will lead to higher educational achievement of students. Bravo!