Times, They Are a-Changing

Who would have thunk it? You'd have to be living under a rock in the world of education to not be familiar with the name, Michelle Rhee, or her sweeping reforms in Washington, DC.

But now that the mayor who brought her in to run the schools, Adrian Fenty, has been defeated, what does that mean for Rhee and all of those reforms ushered in over the past few years?

Well, it might not mean much.

But Rhee’s departure wouldn’t necessarily mean a reversal of her policies.

Some of her initiatives, such as dramatic action to improve the worst-performing schools, overlap with requirements tied to the US Department of Education's Race to the Top competition, which recently awarded the city a four-year, $75 million grant.

Reform advocates fear that the new teacher evaluation system could be in jeopardy, however. After a long battle, Rhee reached a collective bargaining agreement with the teachers’ union earlier this year. It includes a sophisticated evaluation system that incorporates student test score gains. And rather than just using seniority in assigning teachers or allowing them to continue teaching, it takes those evaluations into account.

Arne Duncan is a big Michelle Rhee fan. President Obama is a big Arne Duncan fan, thus it seems certain sacred cows in education are suddenly endangered species.

The first - and most significance - seems to be tenure.

I'm torn on this one. I've had enough bad teachers who are protected by tenure - and seen even more in the field - to realize that tenure is not fool-proof.

But a colleague brought up an excellent point the other afternoon, if not for tenure, what is to keep a school board from cutting the highest paid staff - who under tenure are the senior staff and those who have amassed the extra degrees or courses - to save money? Would a school board cut a veteran science teacher, who might also happen to be an excellent teacher, in order to hire two rookie science teachers who might become excellent teachers one day?

That's scary.

Rhee fought hard against tenure. Her stance is that why should she keep veteran teachers in a district where only 8% of all students are on grade level.

And I have to say that she has a point.

To get around this she tried four three years to negotiate a contract that allowed for teachers to select from two pay scales, the latter of which could easily double a teacher's current salary. However, they had to agree to give up tenure.

Well, that didn't go over.

They did, though, finally settle. But Rhee had to adjust her tactics. To get around tenure, she instituted IMPACT, which is an evaluation system for teachers. If you were rated below a 175, according to the contract, you could be - regardless of tenure - terminated.

The second change that is here to stay seems to be high stakes testing as a way to chart teacher effectiveness.

I'm totally opposed to this.

I'm not opposed to judging teacher effectiveness via student accomplishments. I'm just wary of cheap bubble style tests.

Lord knows I've picked up enough printouts from the lab next to my room where students have been testing all week, and I've seen enough dazed stares to know that those damned things are the total opposite of learning. Yet, they are cheap and easy to use.

Plus, our damned society has become so fascinated with data and evaluations that we'll never shake this disease.

But at least it's interesting times in which to live.