Cleveland teachers advance the way forward

According to an excellent news report in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Cleveland Teachers Union (CTU) just wiped away all of Frank Jackson's empty rhetoric for why he would not involve teachers in the development of his plan, by presenting a clear set of workable alternatives, that advances the way forward for Cleveland schools..

Whether educators express it through massive surveys, or actual deeds, they continue to prove a deep commitment to reforms that lead to quality learning for students. Cleveland teachers, with their clear set of alternative, have demonstrated that too.

Just a week ago, less than 24 hours after Jackson released his plan, he was complaining that he didn't have a response from CTU. We could be petty and point out that Jackson has now had CTU's proposals for nearly a week and still hasn't gotten around to reading them.

"I'm not in a negotiation or compromise mode," Jackson said. "I'm in an outcome mode. If I'm wrong in how I'm proposing to get there, tell me how I should do it. I'll do anything that gets us the outcome."

Jackson was unwilling to say whether CTU's plan offered the kind of change he wants, but said that "my expectation is that there is something that we have a deeper dive on in terms of conversation and details."

School district Chief Executive Officer Eric Gordon said he has also not had time to review the plan in detail but is "hopeful."

We suggest he and his team now make that a priority. The alternatives put forward by CTU are based upon research and principles that work, and provide for a fair way forward. If Jackson is unable to begin to compromise now he has a credible and clear way forward, it should become crystal clear to all that his objections are political, not pedagogical.

Below is a table of comparisons between current policy, Jackson's plan and the way forward presented by Cleveland teachers.

Seniority
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
Until the summer of 2013, seniority is the deciding factor in layoffs and recalls. Teachers with short-term, or limited contracts, are laid off first, but based on seniority, then teachers with tenure, or continuing contracts, are laid off based on seniority. When CTU's contract expires in 2013, a 2011 law makes teacher evaluations the deciding factor. Teachers with limited contracts will be laid off based on evaluations, then teachers with continuing contracts based on evaluations. Seniority is used only as a tiebreaker between teachers in the same pool.	Mirrors the budget bill by making teacher performance the main factor in layoffs and recalls, but removes the distinction between a continuing and limited contract except as a tiebreaker. Also adds other factors to determine the ranking of teachers, including recent teaching assignments and specialties.	Would create eight "buckets" that would divide teachers first by their evaluation (ratings of 1 to 4, with 1 being the lowest) and then by seniority. Teachers with the lowest rating and a limited contract would be laid off first, followed by teachers with the lowest rating and a continuing contract, then teachers with the second-lowest rating and a limited contract, then the second-lowest rating and a continuing contract, and so on.
Merit pay
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The contract pays teachers based on their experience and education level, with bonuses for extra duties. Last year's state budget bill required districts to include teacher ratings in their salary schedules but did not specify to what degree.	Jackson wants to make performance a major part of a "differentiated compensation" plan for teacher pay that pays more for higher performance, extra duties or teaching subjects where there is a teacher shortage or in troubled schools. The proposed law would mandate that this plan prevail over any new contract.	The union has issues with the wording of this part of the legislation. It did not raise objections to the compensation plan itself.
Evaluations
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The district is testing a plan that mirrors statewide requirements to have an evaluation system that measures teachers half on academic growth of students and half on other factors. The state requires a plan for all districts by the 2013-14 school year, but Cleveland is a year ahead of that timetable.	Reaffirms that plan but offers some flexibility in timing.	Teachers and the district mostly agree. Teachers want any law changes on evaluation to include extra training and support for teachers who fall short, and to be sure that evaluators are properly trained. They also don't want to jeopardize the federal Race to The Top grant the district and others are using to develop the plan.
Firing
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The district can seek to fire a teacher for poor teaching after either a year-long review process by the principal, or after following that year with a year of peer review and assistance through a system the union has helped set up. Teachers can also be fired for other behavior.	Would allow a teacher to be fired for having the lowest evaluation rating two years in a row. Jackson also wants the system to move faster. His plan would give teachers short-term contracts that the district can simply choose not to renew.	The teachers union believes the current plan or one developed by its national union is just as fast and effective as Jackson's. Its plan includes help for teachers with low performance ratings before they are fired.
New collective bargaining agreements
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The old contract between CTU and the district guides all new negotiations, and the contract includes several rules on specific issues that roll over in the new contracts.	Jhrows out the previous contract and all previous rules and would start negotiations from scratch. If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, the district could impose a contract rather than reverting to the old one.	The union objects entirely to this proposal. It proposes instead creating a new contract that starts from scratch for three specialty schools within the district, Campus International and two MC2 STEM schools, and it would be in place by July 2013. Those schools would be exempt from layoff and recall rules that apply to the rest of the district.
Tenure/continuing contracts
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
Teachers can apply for a continuing contract after three or seven years of service, depending on when they were hired, and their removal becomes much harder after that. If teachers meet experience and continuing education rules, continuing contracts are generally granted.	All new teachers would not be eligible for continuing contracts and existing teachers would have strict limitations on applying for them. Even then, continuing contracts would be granted at the discretion of the CEO and school board.	The union completely opposes the plan, saying that if the district does not offer job security, it will be at a recruiting and hiring disadvantage.
Reforming low-performing schools
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The law allows reallocation of resources, redesigning academic programs or giving extra assistance to students. The district and CTU must negotiate any changes in work rules or hours. The two sides have reached agreements for some schools in the last few years.	The district CEO would have wide authority to close or reshape a school. The CEO could lay off or fire teachers or change the length of the school year or day in order to reorganize the school.	The teachers union wants to forbid the layoff or firing of teachers just because they work in a low-performing school, regardless of their individual performance. It proposes turning low performing schools into "New Generation" schools that would focus on failing students in the third through seventh grades. Those schools could have a year-round calendar, an extended school day and work with social services agencies.
Union presence in district-sponsored charter schools
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
If a district converts a school to a charter school, a 2011 law allows it to exempt the school from any unions as soon as the current contract for that union expires.	Jackson sought this change last year so his plan does not propose anything further.	The union wants to repeal the rule. It also wants more leeway to try to organize teachers in any charter school sponsored by a district. This would let teachers at the district-sponsored Breakthrough charter schools talk with CTU without fear of reprisals and possibly unionize.

SB5 vs The Budget

The Ohio House has just released their Substitute House Bill 153. It's contains many of the provisions found in SB5, and in some cases, provisions that are even worse. Here are some of the items that now appear in the budget bill.

Teacher Pay

Budget:

Replaces the Executive provision with a provision that requires school districts, community schools, STEM schools, ESCs, and county DD boards, beginning in the 2013-2014 school year, to pay teachers according to a performance-based schedule,

Replaces the Executive provision with a provision that requires the schedule be based on a teacher's level of license, whether the teacher is "highly qualified" under federal law, and evaluation ratings.

Requires the schedule provide for annual adjustments based on evaluations.

SB5:

The bill eliminates the salary schedules and steps in place for teachers and nonteaching employees and instead requires teachers to receive performance based pay.

The bill requires a board to measure a teacher’s performance by considering all of the following:

(1) The level of license (a resident educator license, professional educator license, senior professional educator license, or lead professional educator license) that the teacher holds;

(2) Whether the teacher is a ʺhighly qualified teacherʺ as defined in continuing law;

(3) The value‐added measure the board uses to determine the performance of the students assigned to the teacherʹs classroom;

(4) The results of the teacherʹs performance evaluations or any peer review program created by an agreement entered into by a board of education and representatives of teachers employed by that board;

Budget:

Permits payment of additional compensation to teachers who agree to perform duties that the employer determines warrant additional compensation.

SB5:

Teacher pay can be decided by any other criteria established by the board.

Both Budget and SB5:

Specifies that provisions on teacher pay prevail over collective bargaining agreements entered into on or after the provisions' (immediate) effective date.

Continuing Contracts for Teachers (Tenure)

Budget:

Prohibits awarding a continuing contract (tenure) to a teacher who was initially licensed after January 1, 2011.Limits an employment contract with a classroom teacher entered into by a school district, community school, STEM school, or ESC on or after the provision's (90-day) effective date to a maximum of three years, and specifies that any subsequent contracts must be for terms of two to five years.

SB5:

The bill abolishes continuing contracts for teachers, except for those continuing contracts entered into prior to the effective date of the bill. The bill instead requires classroom teachers to receive limited contracts.

A limited contract for a classroom teacher has a term of five years if the contract was entered into prior to the effective date of the bill.

The term of an initial contract cannot exceed three years if the contract is entered into on or after the effective date of the bill and for subsequent contracts the term is not less than two years or more than five years.

Teacher Evaluation

Budget:

Repeals the requirement for the State Board, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Board of Regents, to establish guidelines for the evaluation of teachers and principals for optional use by school districts, and instead requires the state Superintendent, by December 31, 2011, to develop a framework for the evaluation of teachers.

Requires the Superintendent (1) to develop standards and criteria for teacher and principal evaluations that distinguish between four levels of performance: "highly effective," "effective," "needs improvement," and "unsatisfactory" and (2) to designate a standard of student academic growth that must be met to achieve each of the ratings.

Specifies that the framework require each evaluation to consider: (1) quality of instructional practice, (2) communication and professionalism, and (3) parent and student satisfaction.

Directs each school district, community school, STEM school, and ESC, by July 1, 2012, to adopt a teacher evaluation policy that utilizes the framework and that specifies the relative weight of each factor in (1) to (3) above and how each of those factors will be assessed.

Requires the policy be approved by the Superintendent.

Requires at least 50% of each teacher evaluation be based on student academic growth for students assigned to the teacher during the three most recent school years, except that if less than three years of data is available, permits the portion of the evaluation based on student performance to be reduced to 40%.

Requires student academic growth to be measured by value-added data derived from the state achievement assessments when applicable and by other assessments selected by the employer when not applicable

Requires the employer's teacher evaluation system to (1) use multiple measures of teacher's skills and students' progress, (2) be aligned with the Educator Standards Board's standards for teachers, (3) provide statements of expectation for professional performance, (4) require observation of the teacher on at least two occasions for at least 30 minutes each time, (5) assign ratings in accordance with the state Superintendent's standards and criteria, and (6) require the teacher to be given a written report of the evaluation results, including specific recommendations for improvements

Requires employers to evaluate each teacher annually.

Requires employers to use teacher evaluations to inform decisions about compensation, nonrenewal, termination, reductions in force, and professional development.

Specifies that if a teacher receives a rating of "unsatisfactory" for two consecutive years or two of three consecutive years, a rating of "needs improvement" for three consecutive years, or a combination of ratings of "needs improvement" and "unsatisfactory" for three consecutive years, the teacher loses a continuing contract if the teacher has one.

Requires employers to submit aggregate teacher and principal evaluation results to ODE. Grants civil immunity to the board of education (or other governing body), its members, and evaluators for conducting evaluations in accordance with the adopted policy

SB5:

The evaluation on which a teacherʹs pay must be based is a new evaluation under the bill. No later than April 30, 2012, the Superintendent of Public Instruction must develop and submit recommendations for a framework for teacher evaluations to the State Board of Education.

The recommended framework must require all of the following:(1) At least 50% of each evaluation must be based on measures of student academic growth specified by the Department of Education.

When applicable to a teacher, those measures must include student performance on the assessments prescribed under continuing law and the value‐added progress dimension prescribed under continuing law.(2) Each evaluation must consider the following additional factors, but the recommendations cannot designate the weight of any factor or prescribe a specific method of assessing any factor:(a) Quality of instructional practice, which can be determined by announced and unannounced classroom observations and examinations of samples of work, such as lesson plans or assessments designed by the teacher;(b) Communication and professionalism, including how well the teacher interacts with students, parents, other school employees, and members of the community;(c) Parent and student satisfaction, which may be measured by surveys, questionnaires, or other forms of soliciting feedback.

Also, no later than April 30, 2012, the Superintendent must develop and submit to the State Board recommendations for a framework for the evaluation of principals. The framework must require at least 50% of each evaluation to be based on measures of student academic growth specified by the Department. When applicable to the grade levels served by a principalʹs building, those measures must include student performance on specified assessments and value‐added progress dimension. The framework for the evaluation of principals must be based on principles comparable to the framework for the evaluation of teachers but must be tailored to the duties and responsibilities of principals and the environment in which principals work.

Reduction In Force

These are less identical than the other provisions but have considerable overlap and pertain to the same sections of ORC.

Budget:

Includes a provision that requires school districts, community schools, STEM schools, and ESCs to lay off teachers in order of their evaluation ratings, starting with teachers who receive "unsatisfactory" ratings first.

Includes a provision that prohibits giving preference in retention based on seniority.

Specifies that these provisions prevail over conflicting provisions of a collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the provision's effective date.

Eliminates the requirement that, in rehiring tenured teachers when positions become available, the order of rehiring be based on seniority

SB5:

With regard to teaching and non-teaching employees, the bill removes the authority of school districts and school district financial planning and supervision commissions to give preference to those employees who have greater seniority.

Teachers and non-teachers with continuing contracts receive preference under continuing law.

The bill states that after giving preference to continuing contracts, the board of a city, exempted village, local, or joint vocational school district is required to consider the relative quality of performance the principal factor in determining the order of reductions.

With respect to teachers, the board is required to measure the quality of performance by considering the level of license that the teacher holds, whether the teacher is considered a ʺhighly qualified teacher,ʺ the value‐added measure the board uses to determine the performance of the students assigned to the teacher’s classroom, the results of the teacher’s performance evaluation, and any other criteria established by the board.

Teachers and non-teaching employees whose continuing contracts are suspended by a city, exempted village, local, or joint vocational school district, however, have the right under continuing law to be brought back in the order of seniority.

Forbids school district decisions on reduction in force to be inhibited by a collective bargaining agreement.