Bay City Education Association

December 7, 2009
Black and white versus shades of gray. Often things that seem very clear become cloudy when scrutinized carefully. That is especially true when it comes to so-called school reform – when examined through the lens of education research and practice, changes that seem simple become very complex.

That’s the fundamental concern driving MEA’s engagement around changes required by the federal Race To The Top program. To compete for these competitive, one-time dollars, many measures need to be enacted involving several broad themes. The details of how these proposed changes will work in Michigan have been MEA’s sole focus in discussions with leaders in Lansing since the first announcements about RTTT – and they will be until the last details of Michigan’s application are finalized.

Contrary to some unfounded media reports, MEA wants Michigan to be in a good position to receive these federal funds, despite the state’s draconian budget cuts that have severely threatened our eligibility status in the RTTT competition.

But, whether or not we get the money from Washington, these changes must make sense for our students and our schools in Michigan. And that means getting past the black and white contrasts of talking points and delving into the gray details of these various proposals.

What follows is a list of the reform topics being considered in Lansing in response to the RTTT requirements and the concerns MEA has about the details of those proposals:

Turning around “failing” schools
MEA is on record supporting the package of bills passed by the House earlier this year addressing lowperforming schools. There is a clear and compelling need to accurately assess where schools are missing the mark and appoint someone with the authority, expertise and independence to work with all the stakeholders within that school to lead it to success. There is also a need for a clear definition of the authority of the state superintendent of public instruction to intervene in cases where schools are not succeeding. The House-passed bills meet these needs, ensuring that the professional educators within those schools have the opportunity to work with the appointed turnaround official to help students succeed, while reserving more severe actions as last resorts when good-faith efforts to turn a school around fail. MEA encourages the Legislature to enact these reforms as passed by the House. In contrast, the Senate-passed plan would take some school districts out from the control of their voters without any assurance of student academic progress.

Expansion of high-quality charter schools
MEA’s position on raising the cap on the number of charter schools in Michigan has been completely consistent since signing on to the McPherson Commission report in 2002 – we are not opposed to a controlled, reasonable increase in charters with a proven track record of success, so long as greater accountability and transparency for charters accompanies that increase. That position is in line with President Obama’s and Education Secretary Duncan’s beliefs about charter schools and the requirements under RTTT – we urge the Legislature to ensure that these important accountability and transparency measures are part of the final package so that everyone can be clear that only successful charter schools are replicated.

Linking student growth data to teacher performance RTTT requires student growth data to be a “significant” factor in assessing the performance of educators. That distinction is very important – and readily apparent in listening to President Obama, Secretary Duncan and Governor Granholm talk about this issue. For example, in her comments on Dec. 1, the Governor accurately suggests that RTTT calls for “an annual evaluation of teachers, principals and other school leaders that uses student-growth data along with other factors” (emphasis added).

There are two critical things to note in that statement. First, it is clear that test scores are only one factor in judging an educator’s performance – a multitude of other factors must be taken into account about both the educator and his or her students. Second is the reference to student growth – treating students as individuals and judging their success against their prior achievement rather than an arbitrary target is a much fairer and more constructive way to use test data.

Too often, this particular RTTT requirement gets translated into the notion that teacher success should be judged solely on test scores – MEA will steadfastly oppose efforts to characterize the RTTT student growth data requirements in this simplistic fashion. We have a fundamental belief that basing the continued employment and livelihood of teachers on the results of their students’ standardized test scores is unfair, unethical, disingenuous and, most of all, contrary to the best interest of all students. Using a single, high-stakes measure in isolation to judge both the success of a student and the effectiveness of a teacher ignores the multitude of other factors that
go into both sides of that equation, as well as abundant research that says such actions do nothing to improve student achievement.

Michigan’s RTTT legislation needs to require additional data to support the evaluation process – tracking and linking other information to students, including: attendance; homework completion; parental involvement; free- or reduced-lunch status; other socioeconomic data; special education needs; English language proficiency; and other factors that have been proven time and again to influence student learning. The legislation also must maintain local control over the evaluation process – RTTT requires that teachers and principals be involved in the development of that process. At the district level, employees and administration need flexibility to decide what should drive the evaluation process – such as observation of teaching practices; attainment of additional training and professional development; innovation in delivering curriculum; and other measures of student growth and success beyond how they perform on the MEAP on a given day in October.

Two other topics have been tangentially tied to this broad theme regarding use of student data: merit pay and changes to the tenure law.

On the topic of merit pay, while MEA continues to hold a firm position that pay tied to student performance is neither fair nor effective, there are MEA locals that have collectively bargained such plans. Rather than being based on individual performance, these plans tend to reward entire buildings or districts for meeting agreed upon student achievement goals, reinforcing the team concept in educating students rather than a competitive model. Even in those cases, these plans tend to fail due to a lack of resources to actually implement the financial rewards when these goals are inevitably met by dedicated educators working with their students.

Since RTTT funds are a limited pool of one-time money, many merit pay scenarios developed under the program’s auspices will likely encounter the same dearth of resources that have doomed similar plans both in Michigan and other states.

Regarding changes to teacher tenure, let me make one thing completely clear – MEA does not have any interest in “protecting bad teachers.” Our role as a union is to protect the due process rights of all our members, which is a duty prescribed by law that we are proud to perform. But it is not in the interest of MEA, our members and particularly Michigan’s students to have chronically under-performing teachers in classrooms. It is the role of the school district administration to use agreed-upon procedures to evaluate teachers. If during the four-year long probationary period, a teacher does not meet the district’s standards, the district can choose to dismiss the teacher. After tenure is granted, if a teacher is properly evaluated and is found to no longer be meeting the needs of students, and fails to improve his or her performance, the burden of proof is on the district to make the case for dismissal through the tenure process.

That is how Michigan’s tenure system is currently designed
– absolutely no changes to that basic tenure model are necessary. MEA is willing to discuss reforms to the procedures surrounding tenure that would allow tenure cases to be brought to conclusion in a more expedient manner, as well as reforms that ensure administrators are well-trained and certified in their critical role of evaluating and offering constructive criticism to educators about how they can best meet student needs.

Alternative certification
MEA does not believe, given the quality and quantity of education graduates in our state (not to mention the ranks of laid-off teachers looking for work), that there is a pressing need for additional alternative certification in Michigan. About two-thirds of Michigan’s approximately 7,500 annual education graduates either leave the
state or leave the profession to find work. Expanding the pool of potential employees will not help keep these well-trained Michigan teachers in Michigan classrooms.

But, for the purposes of the RTTT application, MEA is willing to set aside that basic objection so long as steps are taken to ensure that these alternative certification programs produce high-quality teachers. Again, it is important to carefully note the Governor’s comments of Dec. 1 regarding this topic, when she stated that Michigan should “create high-quality alternative routes to certification for both teachers and administrators to help bring more of our best and brightest into education” (emphasis added). It is certainly not in the interest of students to lower standards for the educators charged with guiding them to academic success. That is why MEA is pushing for any alternative certification legislation to have GPA requirements as high or higher than graduates of our state’s rigorous teacher prep programs. Also, once they are in the classroom, alternatively certified teachers should be held to the same high standards for continuing education and professional development as traditionally certified teachers.

The other area of grave concern for MEA is the topic of alternative certification at the elementary level. While MEA does not agree with the argument that a graduate in a non-education field is as well equipped to teach in his or her area of expertise as someone with formal training in the art and science of teaching, we can at
least accept that some would hold a different belief. But to assume that someone with a mathematics, physics, engineering or other topical degree can be properly equipped by a fast-track certification program to deal with the complex and varied educational needs of 25 to 30 first-graders is not only unconscionable, it threatens the very academic foundation that those students will need for success throughout the rest of their lives.

Any alternative certification program approved under the auspices of RTTT must not apply to elementary education.

It is my sincere hope that this letter clarifies MEA’s positions on the various legislative issues surrounding RTTT. I cannot emphasize enough that MEA is ready, willing and eager to be part of Michigan’s successful application for RTTT funds. However, the fundamental concerns that have been raised above must be taken into account because if we are not part of the limited number of states that receive these very competitive federal funds, the academic success of our students will still be subject to the decisions we make in the coming
weeks.

Sincerely,

Iris K. Salters
President
Michigan Education Association