I think this article would have benefited from putting your actual theory, that teachers who teach in poorer schools get lower marks, earlier in the piece.
1. The employer-employee relationship isn't always adversarial, but unions are created to be adversarial. So a unionized industry will almost inevitably have adversarial relations, especially a large unionized industry. It's baked into unions' principal-agent relationship. They are duty-bound to maximize the best interests of their members, just as corporate CEOs are duty-bound to increase shareholder value and lawyers are duty-bound to zealously represent their clients. It's very difficult for them to moderate their advocacy for their principals' interests for the sake of the greater good. It's not impossible, but it isn't how the system is designed to work. Their default setting is to represent their principals' interests to the exclusion of anyone else's.
2. This doesn't mean unions are bad. We have lawyers and business corporations for a reason, and we have unions for a reason too. Sometimes we as a society have to mediate between two competing legitimate points of view, and we decide the best way to ensure a just result is to "arm both sides." It's like checks and balances in government. If both sides fight vigorously, hopefully the outcome will land on the best/most truthful spot in the middle.
3. Because the process is adversarial, it is always in unions' interests to refuse to do whatever management wants their members to do. It is by refusing to do whatever management wants that the union can demand that management pay the union's members to do that thing.
4. That's generally fine in the private sector, but in the public sector there are two complications. First, in the public sector it is management's (i.e. the government's) job to seek the good of society, not to increase shareholder value. That doesn't mean it always does that, of course - not by a long shot. But it is supposed to, and so it often does. Therefore, because it is in unions' interests to refuse to do whatever management prioritizes, it is generally in public employee unions' interests to refuse to make any changes that would benefit society. Second, management also has a principal-agent dynamic, and while its agents (i.e. politicians) do have an incentive to seek the good of society, its principals (i.e. voters) don't always place the *highest* priority on that. So when push comes to shove, you'll often find that management would rather not pay unions extra to agree to stronger accountability for bad apples, but instead would rather lower taxes. In other words, if you "arm both sides" in the public sector hoping they'll eventually land on the most societally beneficial settlement, you may be disappointed.
5. This does not mean that public employee unions are bad. If they didn't exist at all, their members could be exploited. It does mean, however, that you shouldn't be surprised when they oppose changes that would require their members to do good things. That is, in fact, what you should always expect them to do.
We need districts that are models for how to improve education. Matt didn't really talk about test scores much, but what we need are some districts that do teacher performance right and who are able to make that produce a difference in test results. Otherwise, we need to think about where we need to increase funding to make things better.
I'm not a teacher (putting this out there ahead of accusations of bias). I have 2 kids in public school (not DCPS). Of all the metrics by which I judge teachers and schools, the standardized tests are low down the list, unless the scores are outrageously bad.
The value of the results is only as good as the tests, and the tests are worthless. I know that "teaching to the test" is constantly cited, but even in my suburban district, I've watched it. Curricular changes have all been made in line with improving test scores, and they've been particularly rough on ELA. They focus on abstracted skills and shorter passages. There isn't coherent content.
"D.C. now has higher starting salaries for teachers than any of the 50 states"
I don't think we learn much from comparing cities to entire states. It seems more useful to compare cities to other cities, as cities and states are very different things.
Read over the AU study and I really wasn't super impressed. It seemed to be trying to learn more about how teachers felt about the system than it was trying to look at the actual system. Qualitative analysis of school reforms is something we should strive for, but the study didn't seem to actually look at the reforms, it relied on teacher survey's more than anything else, which doesn't provide an accurate, or even a comprehensive look at the effect of IMPACT, let alone the other reforms after DC's 2007 takeover.
There's a lot of research that supports the DC reforms, and suggests they've been successful - Mathematica has been looking at the impacts of the various reforms since 2007, and I'd encourage everyone to check out their research. With this said - I don't doubt that there may still be serious flaws with DC's accountability system, and there's likely a lot that could change, such as introducing professional accountability, or including measures of opportunity for school accountability scores.
I am personally still on the fence about performance pay - but in DC, I think it's clear that it's working. A large part of why it works likely has to do with the fact that DC appears to have ensured that teachers have a high base pay that is livable. When the base pay isn't livable, you end up with situations like the teachers strike that happened in Denver a few years ago.
ok done i'm rambling now, good post though Matt, 10/10 did enjoy
I think your essay is on-target and courageous. But I think it's a sad commentary on current politics that a lucid if somewhat over-cautious and defensive analysis of education reform is "courageous."
Matt, did you read the AU report? The actual quotes from 50 teachers indicate that the demographics of students and neighborhoods determine the rating of teachers in IMPACT as much as the quality of teaching. It's easier to get high scores teaching rich kids. So the racial gap is built into the assumptions of the evaluation method and over-reliance on standardized test scores. Your article missed what was so powerful about the AU study. It actually interviewed teachers and so discovered the effect on teachers of an evaluation system designed to focus on the tiny 1% of under performers. You missed the revelation in this study about the experience of teachers and the effect of IMPACT's methodology on the professional climate of teaching.
So... can we talk about Chicago and the teacher's strike there? That was amazing to behold. I will never forget the MSNBC panel devoted to this urgent affair. It had all the stars, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, I think Reid as well. They had representatives of the Teacher's unions as well as an astroturf parent's association that ardently supported everything the teacher's wanted. Which evaporated as soon as the deal was inked. And how they did talk? They talked about the crappy libraries, the run down school infrastructure, the terrible HVAC, the obsolete and inadequate school computers. You'd almost think the teacher's union actually cared about these things. Sadly, when they got to the bargaining table every single one of those issues just evaporated. And the settlement, every nickle of it, over a billion dollars, went to guess who? To be honest I never expected anything else. Unions bro!
Ah but what they did later was one of the shittiest things I have ever seen. When that big settlement forced the closure of Chicago's oldest and most rundown schools (which were predominantly black) and the students were directed to newer schools in better condition the union went nuts. And then we were treated to on air assertions by Melissa Harris Perry that keeping these Black Students segregated in run down shithole schools there was no money to fix was in the student's best interest. She even had one study to back it up.
And so we were treated to union allegations that the Mayor was racist because he did not support segregation. A unique situation you think? No the same allegations were leveled at the Black mayor of Philadelphia. He was racist. Can't have Black students being permitted to attend better newer schools even when the student/teacher ratio isn't violated. Why it might cause a few teachers to get laid off.
I think you guys nailed it on the Weeds talking about No Child Left Behind when you said there is basically now a consensus within the political system that student outcomes are essentially totally driven by socioeconomic status so trying to improve schools to make kids learn more is pointless. This dispute essentially seems downstream of that (very wrong) belief.
This seems to have devolved into a pro- and anti-union debate, more than a discussion of education in DC about which I know nothing beyond Matt's post. I would say to public sector union members, as private sector unions have shrunk to zilch, be careful what you wish for because your pay and benefits are being paid for by taxes of a lot of people making a lot less than you are, and they're going to notice.
Could be, but don't think public sector labor markets and unions are driving up private sector wages, and I have yet to meet a public school board or PTA member getting rich off lowering teacher wages.
Can we officially be done, on the left, with defending teacher unions? These are the same people who started aligning themselves with Ron Desantis on fighting vaccine mandates. They generally create the least good optics for liberals because they consistently and without the least bit of shame pursue agendas that are actively harmful to children.
At some point, just like police unions defending bad apples because they cargo cult on solidarity above all else, even common sense... teacher unions have to be viewed through the same lens. Good unions don't defend their worst members at the cost of good faith relationships with the people they serve... but most public sector unions have ceased to even try to be reasonable in that regard.
Unions are there to back up their members. Police unions and Teachers unions aren't the bad guys. Police don't want to be fired. Teachers don't want to be fired. Their representation should back them up on that.
The employer is the guy who can do the firing. The employer is the one who decided to negotiate away the right to fire. Likely he saved a few dollars in compensation or possibly severance.
If I my boss offered me 10% less pay but he could never fire me, I would definitely take it. I would personally fire anyone representing me in negotiations who didn't do the same.
I don't think it's that simple. Keeping people in a job they are terrible at *doesn't serve the person keeping the job*. They would literally be better off doing something that they are good at and not keeping a job they suck at.
I would never take 10% less pay to avoid being fired. Because even if I did, they would figure out a way to make my life suck and stunt my growth to the point where I wanted to leave.
I suppose there are people who look at the world strictly transactionally. Good for them, I guess. But any union that is going to defend anyone, regardless of merit, working in a school (science teachers teaching young earth creationism? convicted child molestors?) - is going to get a lot of opposition and lose support of just about everyone not in the union (and, to be noted, many inside the union)
How do you not get that it is the school boards responsibility to hire good teachers (generally for as little pay as possible) and the unions responsibility to represent a bunch of random people looking for jobs teaching?
Where it is that you live such that your school board decided to save money by ensuring that convicted child molesters were able to be employed in their schools? And why is it you don't think that means you should have a problem with your school board?
I think Aaron is talking about the number of egregious examples of unions supporting truly terrible people who have done terrible things. The Neal Erickson case jumps to mind. I think we can all agree a better position for the union would to disavow union members and representation in such situations.
Yes, although I would be inclined to think that was an individuals error. As in, his job requirements said that independent of reason for firing he should seek renumeration, whereas most anyone can see that he should have sought clarification unless he (the union) was in fact legally bound to do so.
There is a quick way to determine which teacher's suck and why. Basically you get a bunch of them together at a party and pour two or three glasses of wine into each one. They get very informative of which other teachers shouldn't even be allowed on school property. In vino veritas.
Matt, with all due respect, you missed the main point of the AU Evaluation of the IMPACT teacher evaluation system. The heart of the evaluation was in-depth 90 minute interviews with 50 randomly selected teachers and another set with principals. They were asked to get a qualitative measure of the effect of the evaluation system on the professional lives of teachers. The interviews were mixed but the negative aspects were troubling and widespread. Teachers talked about the experience being insulting and getting them to do things that they knew were not in the best interest of students. It pushes too much emphasis on standardized test scores. It was designed as an evaluation system aimed at getting rid of low performing teachers, not at improving teaching. Your article drew conclusions about teacher turnover improving without giving any comparison. Compered to what? DC has some of the highest teacher and principal turnover in the country. And turnover has been irresponsibly high ever since 2007 when the "reforms" began. In a nutshell, your article sugar coated a very critical evaluation of IMPACT. Not good reporting, I'm afraid.
According to a new Washington Post survey, in the average D.C. school, 20 percent of the teachers in fall 1999 had not been at their schools the previous spring. At some schools, like Birney and Brent, the number of newcomers was much higher.
===
Does that mean 20% turnover? (20/100 or 25% - 20/80)
You must not have kids in school. For most parents, teachers are the first people parents trust on what's in the best interest of students. If teachers, overwhelmingly say that the evaluation system gets them to do the wrong things for kids, most parents would take that very seriously.
Seeing as the uniform position of virtually every teacher's union is that teachers should not be evaluated at all I will take your opinion with a salt lick. . I seriously doubt that having children currently in school confers any great insight into these problems. But I do know a dozen or so teachers including family members. There is a quick way to identify which teachers suck though...
Given Matthew's unconventional opinion on allowing all children of whatever age to vote I would like to know his position on allowing all students of whatever age to evaluate their teacher's performance. Just like they do for college staff even before such students have reached the age of majority.
I think this article would have benefited from putting your actual theory, that teachers who teach in poorer schools get lower marks, earlier in the piece.
1. The employer-employee relationship isn't always adversarial, but unions are created to be adversarial. So a unionized industry will almost inevitably have adversarial relations, especially a large unionized industry. It's baked into unions' principal-agent relationship. They are duty-bound to maximize the best interests of their members, just as corporate CEOs are duty-bound to increase shareholder value and lawyers are duty-bound to zealously represent their clients. It's very difficult for them to moderate their advocacy for their principals' interests for the sake of the greater good. It's not impossible, but it isn't how the system is designed to work. Their default setting is to represent their principals' interests to the exclusion of anyone else's.
2. This doesn't mean unions are bad. We have lawyers and business corporations for a reason, and we have unions for a reason too. Sometimes we as a society have to mediate between two competing legitimate points of view, and we decide the best way to ensure a just result is to "arm both sides." It's like checks and balances in government. If both sides fight vigorously, hopefully the outcome will land on the best/most truthful spot in the middle.
3. Because the process is adversarial, it is always in unions' interests to refuse to do whatever management wants their members to do. It is by refusing to do whatever management wants that the union can demand that management pay the union's members to do that thing.
4. That's generally fine in the private sector, but in the public sector there are two complications. First, in the public sector it is management's (i.e. the government's) job to seek the good of society, not to increase shareholder value. That doesn't mean it always does that, of course - not by a long shot. But it is supposed to, and so it often does. Therefore, because it is in unions' interests to refuse to do whatever management prioritizes, it is generally in public employee unions' interests to refuse to make any changes that would benefit society. Second, management also has a principal-agent dynamic, and while its agents (i.e. politicians) do have an incentive to seek the good of society, its principals (i.e. voters) don't always place the *highest* priority on that. So when push comes to shove, you'll often find that management would rather not pay unions extra to agree to stronger accountability for bad apples, but instead would rather lower taxes. In other words, if you "arm both sides" in the public sector hoping they'll eventually land on the most societally beneficial settlement, you may be disappointed.
5. This does not mean that public employee unions are bad. If they didn't exist at all, their members could be exploited. It does mean, however, that you shouldn't be surprised when they oppose changes that would require their members to do good things. That is, in fact, what you should always expect them to do.
We need districts that are models for how to improve education. Matt didn't really talk about test scores much, but what we need are some districts that do teacher performance right and who are able to make that produce a difference in test results. Otherwise, we need to think about where we need to increase funding to make things better.
I'm not a teacher (putting this out there ahead of accusations of bias). I have 2 kids in public school (not DCPS). Of all the metrics by which I judge teachers and schools, the standardized tests are low down the list, unless the scores are outrageously bad.
The value of the results is only as good as the tests, and the tests are worthless. I know that "teaching to the test" is constantly cited, but even in my suburban district, I've watched it. Curricular changes have all been made in line with improving test scores, and they've been particularly rough on ELA. They focus on abstracted skills and shorter passages. There isn't coherent content.
"D.C. now has higher starting salaries for teachers than any of the 50 states"
I don't think we learn much from comparing cities to entire states. It seems more useful to compare cities to other cities, as cities and states are very different things.
Read over the AU study and I really wasn't super impressed. It seemed to be trying to learn more about how teachers felt about the system than it was trying to look at the actual system. Qualitative analysis of school reforms is something we should strive for, but the study didn't seem to actually look at the reforms, it relied on teacher survey's more than anything else, which doesn't provide an accurate, or even a comprehensive look at the effect of IMPACT, let alone the other reforms after DC's 2007 takeover.
There's a lot of research that supports the DC reforms, and suggests they've been successful - Mathematica has been looking at the impacts of the various reforms since 2007, and I'd encourage everyone to check out their research. With this said - I don't doubt that there may still be serious flaws with DC's accountability system, and there's likely a lot that could change, such as introducing professional accountability, or including measures of opportunity for school accountability scores.
I am personally still on the fence about performance pay - but in DC, I think it's clear that it's working. A large part of why it works likely has to do with the fact that DC appears to have ensured that teachers have a high base pay that is livable. When the base pay isn't livable, you end up with situations like the teachers strike that happened in Denver a few years ago.
ok done i'm rambling now, good post though Matt, 10/10 did enjoy
I think your essay is on-target and courageous. But I think it's a sad commentary on current politics that a lucid if somewhat over-cautious and defensive analysis of education reform is "courageous."
Matt, did you read the AU report? The actual quotes from 50 teachers indicate that the demographics of students and neighborhoods determine the rating of teachers in IMPACT as much as the quality of teaching. It's easier to get high scores teaching rich kids. So the racial gap is built into the assumptions of the evaluation method and over-reliance on standardized test scores. Your article missed what was so powerful about the AU study. It actually interviewed teachers and so discovered the effect on teachers of an evaluation system designed to focus on the tiny 1% of under performers. You missed the revelation in this study about the experience of teachers and the effect of IMPACT's methodology on the professional climate of teaching.
So... can we talk about Chicago and the teacher's strike there? That was amazing to behold. I will never forget the MSNBC panel devoted to this urgent affair. It had all the stars, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, I think Reid as well. They had representatives of the Teacher's unions as well as an astroturf parent's association that ardently supported everything the teacher's wanted. Which evaporated as soon as the deal was inked. And how they did talk? They talked about the crappy libraries, the run down school infrastructure, the terrible HVAC, the obsolete and inadequate school computers. You'd almost think the teacher's union actually cared about these things. Sadly, when they got to the bargaining table every single one of those issues just evaporated. And the settlement, every nickle of it, over a billion dollars, went to guess who? To be honest I never expected anything else. Unions bro!
Ah but what they did later was one of the shittiest things I have ever seen. When that big settlement forced the closure of Chicago's oldest and most rundown schools (which were predominantly black) and the students were directed to newer schools in better condition the union went nuts. And then we were treated to on air assertions by Melissa Harris Perry that keeping these Black Students segregated in run down shithole schools there was no money to fix was in the student's best interest. She even had one study to back it up.
And so we were treated to union allegations that the Mayor was racist because he did not support segregation. A unique situation you think? No the same allegations were leveled at the Black mayor of Philadelphia. He was racist. Can't have Black students being permitted to attend better newer schools even when the student/teacher ratio isn't violated. Why it might cause a few teachers to get laid off.
My advice is to crush them.
I think you guys nailed it on the Weeds talking about No Child Left Behind when you said there is basically now a consensus within the political system that student outcomes are essentially totally driven by socioeconomic status so trying to improve schools to make kids learn more is pointless. This dispute essentially seems downstream of that (very wrong) belief.
This seems to have devolved into a pro- and anti-union debate, more than a discussion of education in DC about which I know nothing beyond Matt's post. I would say to public sector union members, as private sector unions have shrunk to zilch, be careful what you wish for because your pay and benefits are being paid for by taxes of a lot of people making a lot less than you are, and they're going to notice.
Could be, but don't think public sector labor markets and unions are driving up private sector wages, and I have yet to meet a public school board or PTA member getting rich off lowering teacher wages.
Can we officially be done, on the left, with defending teacher unions? These are the same people who started aligning themselves with Ron Desantis on fighting vaccine mandates. They generally create the least good optics for liberals because they consistently and without the least bit of shame pursue agendas that are actively harmful to children.
At some point, just like police unions defending bad apples because they cargo cult on solidarity above all else, even common sense... teacher unions have to be viewed through the same lens. Good unions don't defend their worst members at the cost of good faith relationships with the people they serve... but most public sector unions have ceased to even try to be reasonable in that regard.
Unions are there to back up their members. Police unions and Teachers unions aren't the bad guys. Police don't want to be fired. Teachers don't want to be fired. Their representation should back them up on that.
The employer is the guy who can do the firing. The employer is the one who decided to negotiate away the right to fire. Likely he saved a few dollars in compensation or possibly severance.
If I my boss offered me 10% less pay but he could never fire me, I would definitely take it. I would personally fire anyone representing me in negotiations who didn't do the same.
"Police unions and Teachers unions aren't the bad guys"
Yes they are. When they protect bad cops, then people get killed. When they protect bad teachers, then kids don't get educated.
I don't think it's that simple. Keeping people in a job they are terrible at *doesn't serve the person keeping the job*. They would literally be better off doing something that they are good at and not keeping a job they suck at.
I would never take 10% less pay to avoid being fired. Because even if I did, they would figure out a way to make my life suck and stunt my growth to the point where I wanted to leave.
I suppose there are people who look at the world strictly transactionally. Good for them, I guess. But any union that is going to defend anyone, regardless of merit, working in a school (science teachers teaching young earth creationism? convicted child molestors?) - is going to get a lot of opposition and lose support of just about everyone not in the union (and, to be noted, many inside the union)
How do you not get that it is the school boards responsibility to hire good teachers (generally for as little pay as possible) and the unions responsibility to represent a bunch of random people looking for jobs teaching?
Where it is that you live such that your school board decided to save money by ensuring that convicted child molesters were able to be employed in their schools? And why is it you don't think that means you should have a problem with your school board?
What about the infamous NY rubber rooms, where the unions were protecting teachers that were literally a danger to kids
https://nypost.com/2019/11/02/nyc-pays-rubber-room-teacher-six-figures-20-years-after-sex-abuse-claims/
I think Aaron is talking about the number of egregious examples of unions supporting truly terrible people who have done terrible things. The Neal Erickson case jumps to mind. I think we can all agree a better position for the union would to disavow union members and representation in such situations.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522818/Teachers-union-seeks-10-000-severance-teacher-molested-son.html
Yes, although I would be inclined to think that was an individuals error. As in, his job requirements said that independent of reason for firing he should seek renumeration, whereas most anyone can see that he should have sought clarification unless he (the union) was in fact legally bound to do so.
There is a quick way to determine which teacher's suck and why. Basically you get a bunch of them together at a party and pour two or three glasses of wine into each one. They get very informative of which other teachers shouldn't even be allowed on school property. In vino veritas.
Matt, with all due respect, you missed the main point of the AU Evaluation of the IMPACT teacher evaluation system. The heart of the evaluation was in-depth 90 minute interviews with 50 randomly selected teachers and another set with principals. They were asked to get a qualitative measure of the effect of the evaluation system on the professional lives of teachers. The interviews were mixed but the negative aspects were troubling and widespread. Teachers talked about the experience being insulting and getting them to do things that they knew were not in the best interest of students. It pushes too much emphasis on standardized test scores. It was designed as an evaluation system aimed at getting rid of low performing teachers, not at improving teaching. Your article drew conclusions about teacher turnover improving without giving any comparison. Compered to what? DC has some of the highest teacher and principal turnover in the country. And turnover has been irresponsibly high ever since 2007 when the "reforms" began. In a nutshell, your article sugar coated a very critical evaluation of IMPACT. Not good reporting, I'm afraid.
". It was designed as an evaluation system aimed at getting rid of low performing teachers, not at improving teaching"
Wouldn't this necessarily improve teaching by shifting the average?
Hmm, would be good to see numbers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2001/03/29/the-good-and-bad-of-teacher-turnover/795aaa12-6d77-476a-b6d4-1fdbe9cd865d/
===
According to a new Washington Post survey, in the average D.C. school, 20 percent of the teachers in fall 1999 had not been at their schools the previous spring. At some schools, like Birney and Brent, the number of newcomers was much higher.
===
Does that mean 20% turnover? (20/100 or 25% - 20/80)
https://sboe.dc.gov/page/teacher-retention
===
27% turnover listed
===
That's higher than 2000 for sure.
Didn't see others yet.
When it comes to the best interests of students teachers and their unions are the last people you should ask.
You must not have kids in school. For most parents, teachers are the first people parents trust on what's in the best interest of students. If teachers, overwhelmingly say that the evaluation system gets them to do the wrong things for kids, most parents would take that very seriously.
Seeing as the uniform position of virtually every teacher's union is that teachers should not be evaluated at all I will take your opinion with a salt lick. . I seriously doubt that having children currently in school confers any great insight into these problems. But I do know a dozen or so teachers including family members. There is a quick way to identify which teachers suck though...
Making the schools teacher proof seems to be one of the great goals of every educational reform program.
Given Matthew's unconventional opinion on allowing all children of whatever age to vote I would like to know his position on allowing all students of whatever age to evaluate their teacher's performance. Just like they do for college staff even before such students have reached the age of majority.