Merit Pay, the UFT, TJC, and NCLB

At one point I did not understand how the UFT and Weingarten could support merit pay in any form. But after reading the Kahlenberg book on Al Shanker, it all makes sense. For those who think Randi has taken the union in a different direction than Shanker, take a look at the book and you will see just about all of the union's current policies in there from the early 80's on.

The UFT is against the individual merit pay provision in NCLB but will accept (even if they don't say so openly) building merit pay as not being as onerous. Sure. The UFT/AFT should be calling for the total abolition of NCLB, which has been so onerous to teachers, students and parents. But much of the NCLB law could have been written by Shanker.

I spent months in 2002 trying to get a resolution at the DA urging a fight against all forms of merit pay but was stonewalled by Weingarten. That frustrating experience gave me an insight into where she was really coming from and led to a break with her that moved me to change direction from trying to use friendly persuasion on Randi to open opposition.

Marian Swerdlow and others in TJC were totally supportive of my efforts at the time despite being mildly critical of Ed Notes for trying to play ball with Randi for the 5 previous years. They were so right.

My bone to pick with this resolution is that if there would be a nationwide demo, it should address the core issues of joining with others around the nation to fight against reauthorization of the entire NCLB Act and not limit it to such a narrow focus as merit pay. But this is a specificly targeted resolution that also addresses the building merit pay issue and if passed (snowball in hell territory here) it could be expanded in the future. Urge your reps to support it at Weds. DA. If they are Unity Caucus, ask them to explain why they are opposed.

To be presented at the UFT Delegate Assembly, Oct. 17 by Teachers for a Just Contract.

THE UFT MUST LAUNCH A REAL FIGHT AGAINST MERIT PAY
The reauthorized No Child Left Behind Act is heading towards the inclusion of a provision forcing school districts to implement individual merit pay to teachers as a condition for receiving important federal funding. Individual merit pay is not only intrinsically unfair, the competition among colleagues it engenders destroys our ability to act together as a union. It is also destructive to the mutually helpful cooperation that goes on among teachers all the time: comparing and sharing experiences, methods, lesson plans, etc. (School based merit pay is equally unfair and carries its own set of problems as well.) What this would mean is that part of the pay package we negotiate, instead of going to across the board raises, would be dedicated to this unfair and destructive scheme.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Weingarten and the union leadership have no credible plan to protect us from this threat. Teachers for a Just Contract will be proposing an effective launch for a serious campaign to defeat this threat at the Delegate Assembly on Wednesday, October 17, by proposing the resolution below. It calls for a nationwide demonstration by teachers in Washington D.C., to publicize the dangers of merit pay to education, and put our representatives - Democrats and Republicans alike - that we will take this fight to the mat.

Resolution Against Using the Threat of Defunding Schools to Impose Merit Pay

Whereas: Merit pay is intrinsically unfair and detrimental to professionalism and union solidarity among teachers;

Whereas: Any provision of federal law making Title I funding to a district conditional upon its imposition of pay for performance (a.k.a.merit pay), whether individual or school-based, as measured by testing, as proposed for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Law, virtually imposes this unfair scheme on nearly all of our nation's teachers;

Whereas: We cannot depend upon writing letters and lobbying Senators and Congresspersons to be enough to stop this strong and serious threat to our students, our profession and our unions;

Whereas: holding mass demonstrations in the nation's capital has proven an effective tool for pressuring Congress and winning public support for past social causes, including peace, civil rights and women's rights;

Therefore, be it resolved, that the UFT will initiate, organize and build among our sister teacher union locals a nation wide demonstration and protest, to be held in Washington, D.C., at the earliest optimal date for the dual purpose of focusing public attention on our powerful arguments against merit pay based on testing, and demonstrating to our elected representatives the strength and resolve of our opposition to this provision.

Merit Pay in Play

The NY Sun's Elizabeth Green reports that some schools will give individual teachers merit pay for performance. Randi Weingarten objects - sort of. Way back when, I attempted to bring resolutions to the Delegate Assembly calling for the UFT to refuse all proposals to institute merit pay, Weingarten blocked them by not calling on me for months. I finally got the floor at around 6:15 pm on a day when Unity Caucus was heading to an election victory party at the Hilton afterwards. Boy were they pissed that they had to listen to me for 5 minutes. Naturally they turned it down. After all, Randi had supported the plan in District 19 (East New York in Brooklyn) that gave merit pay to entire staffs for rising scores. And her plan when Giuliani was still mayor to pay summer school teachers for high scores with free airline tickets caused much hilarity all around. (That proposal has disappeared from her resume.)

Stacey Gauthier co-director of operations at the Renaissance's Charter School doesn't understand "why the union wouldn't want to support their members getting extra income."

Shame on her to think think the UFT leadership has any core values beyond money. Remember extended days, times, years, lunch duty, and the entire litany of givebacks? So when they support "a plan that would reward entire schools for meeting performance goals, but would not differentiate between teachers" that is just a foot in the door for full merit pay where teachers can get to compete with each other for the best kids and to see who can spend more time doing test practice. Sort of like let's give the first fireman up the ladder bonuses.)

The UFT is in favor of teachers at different schools competing against each other (there's a good basis for union solidarity) on the basis of no performance goals other than a narrow range of tests. And so soon after the UFT came out with a report that laments the impact of testing which just goes to prove the mantra: watch what they do not what they say. Randi's actions rather than words shows she supports the testing/standards malestrom that is destroying public education.

Note what Randi said:
"But the union's president, Randi Weingarten ... said unionized schools could not enact merit pay without renegotiating their contracts, a process the UFT could halt. "It has to be negotiated," she said. "CEI or the school leadership is not going to unilaterally do this."

Not that she is unilaterally opposed to merit pay and giving the powerful reasons why teachers who support the idea should stand against it. But that things have to be negotiated. In the UFT lexicon everything is for sale.

The entire UFT leadership should be sworn to take the hypocritic oath.

Teachers in Wisconsin have written:
"Those in government who would like to bring about the demise of public education in the interest of privatization have a multi-faceted approach. Among them is paying teachers based on the test scores of children. Plain and simple this is an attack on public education and those who teach in the public schools. "Merit pay won't make our classrooms less crowded, won't make our schools safer, won't get parents more involved in their children's schoolwork... won't improve teaching or pupil learning...(it) would encourage divisive competition in a profession that requires cooperation and teamwork... (and it would be unfair given the uncontrollable factors) that children's learning is also affected by circumstances related to their home environment, health care, nutrition, and other factors", so says Adam Urbanski, in MERIT PAY WON'T WORK IN SCHOOLS."

Measuring Teachers

"If teachers are to be held accountable for the performance of their students, strategies for measuring the impact of their work must be refined or, at least, the uncertainties of these measurements must be taken into account in assessing the impact of teachers and schools on student performance."
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9050/index1.html

The word performance can be viewed narrowly (how kids score the reading and math test) or broadly. Once behavior enters into it - often discounted as an "excuse" but to teachers one of the most important factors - things get very sticky. I do not mean behavior in the sense of "good and bad' but in the wider sense of the resources students bring to the table and the ability of the teacher to work with them in that framework. I had "successes" with kids who did not move higher in reading but moved significantly in their ability to control their emotions, function within the context of a classroom, etc. Can these things be measured?

I taught in a rotation system in elementary school. One year you get the higher performing class, the next you don't. Same school, same families, same teacher, etc. This was not a big school -- 2 or 3 classes on the grade. My measured performance varied vastly depending on which level I taught. In some ways I was better with the struggling kids. There were teachers in my school who were awesome with the top classes but fell apart when they had the bottom classes. We had teachers who were willing to sell their souls to stay out of the bottom classes.

Class size made a difference but the administration in my school in the 70's at least tried to make the lower exponent classes smaller. Most teachers fought to teach the better classes even with the higher class size. Favorites of the principal were often rewarded (violating the contract) with these classes year after year. Or they tried to put the teachers they thought to be the best with the top classes, relegating the lower classes to some sort of triage.

The entire process is so complex, trying to judge teachers on performance is very difficult. In the old days the key thing was if you could control your class. The entire school -- colleagues, admins, parents, etc measured you as a teacher based on that factor alone. When I learned how to do that I felt it was one of the major accomplishments of my life and turned me into a confident teacher. It was one of the hardest things I have ever done. Dealing with actually teaching them after that became the next hard thing.

I met a top lawyer at a party a few years ago and he entered teaching around the same time I did in the late 60's to stay out of the draft. He couldn't believe I stayed in all these years. He taught in the south Bronx for 2 years and said it was the hardest thing he ever did. He was not referring to the teaching part.

Klein was there too as a teacher escaping the draft at the same time for around 6 months and you never hear him sat a word about that experience. I know what he must have went through. We all did. He knows what it's all about and that is why I consider him such a snake in the way he and others put the main blame for failing schools on teacher competency.

Cerf said as much at the Manhattan Inst luncheon. That is why we have all the phony prof. development. The way I and other generations of teachers learned PD was from the great teachers who worked with us.