The increasingly wrong "conventional wisdom" about urban education reform -- and DC gets an "F"

I am the first to criticize unions, or any other institution that uses their position of power and authority for their own benefit. This tendency of organizations to do so was first discussed by Robert Michels in the classic tome of sociology, Political Parties, published in 1911! He discusses, among other concepts, the iron law of oligarchy, which Wikipedia summarizes thusly:

It states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of the leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led towards the leaders, and the general immobility and passivity of the masses.

But unions aren't the only problem when it comes to urban education. So too are the interests that see the schools government agency as a place from which to acquire contracts and sweetheart deals and to put favored people into jobs. This is discussed, albeit about Baltimore but the process is universal, in Marion Orr's book Black Social Capital: The Politics of School Reform in Baltimore, 1986-1998.

The conventional wisdom is repeated in yesterday's Washington Post, in the column by Richard Cohen, "$100 Billion and No Change Back":

Most of the $100 billion earmarked for K-12 education goes to enrich existing programs or to ensure that they continue. Some of these programs, such as Title I for disadvantaged children, are federally mandated, and with the recession they are becoming increasingly difficult for the states to fund. This is money well spent.

But if the money is going to be offered, why not couple it with demands for reform? After all, without the extra cash, the likelihood is that teachers across the country will be laid off. That gives the president some leverage: Take my money, take my reforms. Maybe a deal could not be done. We won't know. We do know, though, that the teachers unions have an understandable aversion to some reforms. We also know that the unions supported Obama in his campaign.

Do your reading on education and you will find an emerging consensus. Abolish tenure. There are other ways to ensure that teachers are fairly treated without guaranteeing the jobs of the inept. (Cops don't have tenure, and neither do columnists.) Ensure that the best teachers teach at the most challenging schools and ensure also that they get paid lavishly for doing so.

(I do agree with his point about linking the provision of funds to preferred outcomes. Although the process of setting preferred outcomes usually gets messed up by ideology and interest groups. E.g., the Bush Administration's funding of a particular reading training program despite research that found no positive additional benefits from this method vs. other methods.)

The issue really isn't tenure for teachers. And given the arbitrary and capricious practices exhibited by Chancellor Rhee in Washington, DC thus far, anyone with any sense can see why civil service protections for government employees are reasonable.

The issue is in how teachers (and principals, schools, children, and parents and families) are developed and supported throughout their tenure. Of course, if the development systems to improve teachers and teaching aren't in place (this is about the maintenance function of organizations, about training and developing the people who comprise the organization, as discussed in the classic textbook Social Psychology of Organizations) then not very good teachers are going to be protected through tenure, but the question really is about the teaching development and management process.

Whereas the DC Public Schools are introducing 90 day improvement plans, conversations I have with teachers say that becoming a "good" teacher takes about three years. And it's interesting that the Teach for America program touted by Chancellor Rhee and others provides for a two year commitment!

With proper management and development systems in place in an urban school system, I would set up a 4 year probationary period, but have all the systems in place beforehand to develop and support teachers to produce outstanding teaching.

I think about this a lot, and was struck by the "support system" developed to teach math at Bond Mill Elementary School in Prince George's County. See "A little (math) help from their friends" from the Gazette. But at that school, it is fourth graders tutoring pre-kindergarten through second grade students in mathematics through the "Math Buddies" program. New teachers need similar supports. So do teachers who haven't been supported for many years.

Similarly, the Arizona Republic ran a story yesterday, "Arizona gets low grade on teacher retention, about a report from the National Council on Teacher Quality comparing all U.S. states and DC on their ability to retain high quality teachers. That report is the flip side of this question. Potentially good teachers will leave if they lack the management and support systems necessary to succeed. Students need those same kinds of systems in place if they are going to succeed.

From the article:

The latest report comes as policy experts argue that school districts need to better align compensation and professional development with student-achievement goals. The council assigned grades to each state in three areas: policies for identifying teacher effectiveness, retaining good teachers, and weeding out ineffective instructors. It then averaged them for an overall score.

South Carolina earned the highest score, a 'B-', mainly because of a high grade for its comprehensive system for removing ineffective teachers.

The majority of states fell in the 'D' range, while the District of Columbia, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont received an overall grade of 'F.'

Imagine the Washington Post running a story on this national report...