Intercepts
A listening post monitoring public education and teachers’ unions.

I’ve spent this morning poring over press reports and blog posts about NEA President Dennis Van Roekel’s testimony yesterday before the House Education and Labor Committee. The reactions run the gamut from excited to hopeful to suspicious to skeptical. Just an example:

USA Today – “NEA moves to help poor schools with best teachers”

Washington Post – “NEA Signals Contract Flexibility”

Wall Street Journal – “Teachers Union Shifts Stance, Backs Looser Staffing Rules”

Teacher Beat – “Rep. George Miller and the NEA: Round Two”

Independent Women’s Forum Inkwell - “Is NEA Making A Genuine Effort?”

Swift & Change Able – “NEA on Teacher Quality and Equity: Crossroads or Another Blind Alley?”

I know you expect me to fall into the highly skeptical to downright hostile range, but my initial reaction is fairly positive. NEA had to make some sort of gesture, as the Obama administration and an increasing number of Democrats have made it abundantly clear they’re not going to simply open the bank vault and say, “Have at it, boys!”

But because reaction was so mixed, I thought it important to examine Van Roekel’s testimony, as well as the text of the NEA report he repeatedly cited as accompaniment, Children of Poverty Deserve Great Teachers: One Union’s Commitment to Changing the Status Quo. There are key portions that commentators have latched onto, and others that have gone unmentioned.

* Teacher quality. Van Roekel said, “Nevertheless, we cannot cover up the fact that too often schools with the greatest needs are filled with the most inexperienced and least skilled teachers. As a result, talented teachers in high-needs schools work alongside colleagues who lack training, are unprepared for the challenges they encounter, and who, due to revolving-door staffing patterns, are banished to high-needs schools without any support.”

He often referred to “accomplished teachers” and “qualified, effective teachers” but with only a couple of clues regarding how he makes that determination. National board certification is one standard he uses. Another is experience. And in a parenthetical aside at one point, he describes them as “credentialed, experienced teachers who are teaching in their field and who score well on tests of academic and teaching ability.” He also mentions teachers with “high ‘value-added’ student achievement gains,” though the Children of Poverty report states that ”the data are not reliable for making high-stakes decisions.”

* National certification. Van Roekel told the committee that NEA “has worked with more than 2,000 of the nation’s best teachers who told us what will attract and keep our most effective teachers in our most challenging schools.” One needs to refer to the Children of Poverty report to learn that the 2,000 teachers were a group of nationally certified teachers. One of the criticisms of the national certification program itself is that the teachers aren’t subsequently placed where they are most needed. The report also spends a lot of time on national certification, suggesting NEA hasn’t yet given up hope that it can substitute national certification for other performance measurements.

* Performance pay. In this area, I believe Van Roekel offered rhetorical flexibility only. He said, “Lessons from the private sector and voices of teachers indicate that performance pay makes the most difference when it focuses on ‘building a collaborative workplace culture’ to improve practices and outcomes.” I’m not sure what that means, but I’m certain it doesn’t mean individual performance pay. He also said, “We will also support our state and local affiliates who partner in pursuit of innovative incentive and compensation programs (through funding streams such as the TIF grant program).” That is already NEA policy. Besides, “innovative incentive and compensation programs” could be anything.

* “Contract flexibility.” This got the most attention and caused the most confusion. Van Roekel said NEA will “address barriers in collective bargaining agreements by requesting that every local NEA affiliate enter into a compact or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with its local school district to waive any contract language that prohibits staffing high-needs schools with great teachers. These compacts should also add commitments that would enhance this goal. Similarly, NEA would promote compacts or MOUs for its non-collective bargaining local affiliates that have high-needs schools in their districts.”

This was the most hopeful sign, since any effort to address what Van Roekel himself called “barriers” is a positive thing. Van Roekel testified he would make this request to “every local NEA affiliate” and the Children of Poverty report states NEA would “encourage and support affiliate collaboration with school districts” on the issue. But later in the report it also says, ”The NEA will identify and support 10 to 20 local affiliates who will work with their school district partners to develop new compacts that address teacher effectiveness and the distribution of accomplished teachers.” There’s a big difference between 10 to 20 local affiliates and “every,” which would be more than 13,000.

There’s also a kicker that no one has yet addressed: “And NEA will develop resources and strategies to help its affiliates expand the scope of collective bargaining to pursue collaboratively at the bargaining table multiple measures of student learning and teacher quality.” Expanding the scope of collective bargaining is a long-time NEA goal, and its inclusion here smells of an attempt to co-opt President Obama’s agenda.

While there is plenty of reason to doubt Van Roekel’s sincerity (read his September 15 AFL-CIO speech for a different tone entirely), I think the proper approach to this is the one that Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, took. Rather than pooh-pooh Van Roekel’s statement as the usual eyewash, Rep. Miller played up the testimony as a “major step for the NEA.” He gave every indication that he plans to hold NEA to its commitments. Policymakers and school boards across the country should pick up the ball and run with it. Then we’ll see for sure if flexible actions result from flexible words.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 1st, 2009 at 12:31 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.