Last week, after months of negotiations, the teachers union refused to agree to a meaningful system for evaluating teachers in 33 struggling city schools. As a result, the state suspended some $60 million in federal grants meant for those schools.
It was a truly unfortunate outcome — but even more worrisome is the fact that the union leadership threw away those desperately needed federal dollars because they wanted new job protections for the worst-performing teachers in those schools.
Rewind to a year and a half ago, when Mayor Bloomberg, then-Chancellor Joel Klein, United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew, state Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch and others stood together to celebrate New York’s win of the US Department of Education’s Race to the Top competition.
The win was based in part on New York’s adoption of a comprehensive new teacher-evaluation system based on multiple measures, including concrete evidence of student learning. Under the proposed system, teachers would receive one of four ratings: “highly effective,” “effective,” “developing” or “ineffective.” The evaluations would play a significant role in a wide array of decisions, including tenure and possible continued employment.
But the law left the final details to be collectively bargained by the districts and the teachers unions. A year and a half later, the UFT leadership has yet to even agree to sit down with us for a conversation on a citywide system.
We weren’t able to get the union leadership to agree to implement the new teacher-evaluation system in the 33 schools for which the $60 million in federal funding was intended.
These are schools that have been cited by the state as persistently low-achieving, and they are in need of serious management help, instructional assistance and new talent. To qualify for the federal aid, we had until Jan. 1 to finalize an agreement with the UFT on a new evaluation system.
Unfortunately, at almost every step, the UFT stalled or insisted on conditions that would undercut real accountability. For example, the UFT wanted an outside arbitrator to hear the appeals of teachers who receive a rating of ineffective or developing. This would be a radical departure from our current appeal process and stems from the UFT’s dissatisfaction with the low rate at which teachers’ “unsatisfactory” ratings are overturned during appeals. However, only 2 percent of our 75,000 teachers are U-rated in a given year, so it’s not surprising that the majority of those ratings would be upheld.
It is also important to note that the UFT’s proposal to add arbitrators to the appeal process contradicts the intent of the state law and the State Education Department’s guidance by adding a burdensome procedural layer designed to keep ineffective teachers in the classroom.
This is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to everyone who signed on to our Race to the Top application, which was based on a commitment to accountability systems that benefit our students.
In fact, in recent months, the UFT has become so opposed to accountability that it has refused to even fulfill basic and critical responsibilities, such as appointing arbitrators to hear what are called 3020-a cases — which are meant for dealing with teachers charged with behavior that warrants termination.
The UFT’s actions appear to be motivated by a desire to reduce the total number of arbitrators available, thus slowing the process of removing bad teachers — including those who have committed felonies and violence against children.
These actions, and the UFT’s willingness to jeopardize $60 million for schools that desperately need help rather than agree to a responsible evaluation system, show that it cares more about protecting the lowest-performing teachers than anything else.
As a result, the state Education Department said it would suspend the funding. While that’s tough to swallow, I could not in good faith agree to a toothless accountability system. Money is important, but it should not drive bad public policy.
Ten years ago, Mayor Bloomberg took on a corrupt, dysfunctional school system and made accountability for student outcomes a top priority. Our schools have made steady progress — but, in order to continue moving forward, we must insist on a rigorous evaluation system for all of our teachers. Our students deserve nothing less.
Dennis M. Walcott is New York City schools chancellor.