Teacher Evaluation & Labor Rights – A Historical Context
In 1935, as our nation was recovering from the Great Depression triggered by corporate excess, in one of the most consequential moves by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the democratically lead congress, the National Labor Relations Act was passed. This act was intended to set America back on a strong footing and remedy the tremendous imbalance of power and interests between the wealthy and powerful company bosses and those whom they employ. It was also the foundational policy concept that created the social strata we now call “the middle class;” and it ushered in an era of economic conditions that hadn’t existed prior. Now the majority of Americans could do more than just work to live. They could save, invest, engage in this new idea called “recreation,” and pursue dreams for themselves and their family beyond subsistence. This also was and still is the basis for our vast economic power and desirable quality of life on the international stage.
In 1939, as instances of disputes between the newly empowered unions representing employees and company employers occurred, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) was established to handle the administration and interpretation of the Labor Relations Act of 1935. At this time, however, public employees such as police and firefighters, public school teachers and employees within state agencies were not yet covered by this legislation. Though public service was then, and still remains today, a vocation of the honorable citizen, the gains in economic and working conditions experienced by employees of the large auto makers, for instance, had yet to find their way to the even larger group of public employees serving the people of our state. It wasn’t until 1962, through executive order by then President John F. Kennedy, that federal employees obtained the right to collectively bargain; and then in 1965, through the efforts of the Michigan Education Association (MEA) and other organizations representing public employees, that these rights, passed by then Republican Governor Romney, became law.
The Public Employees Relations Act (known as PERA) allowed Michigan public employees, and in this case public school employees, to negotiate aspects of their work with their employer; the school’s Board of Education, and the State Board of Education were required to engage in these negotiations. Aspects of their work to be negotiated would include things like; wages, hours, and working conditions such as class sizes, availability of supplies, and very importantly how they would be evaluated as employees. The notion that teachers, who were highly educated, trained and trusted to develop the minds of our young people, were also the best positioned to help determine the process and metrics for evaluating fellow teachers in that endeavor became an accepted norm. Michigan teachers were always at the forefront of educational practice, and who better to form the basis for evaluating their practice than the educators themselves? Attorneys evaluate the practice of law by other attorneys and doctors evaluate the medical practice of other doctors; this logic carried through to the other most recognized and respected educated professionals within a community, the teacher.
Teachers leading in the evaluation of their own practice in our state was the case for what is likely the entire lives of many of those reading this post. This, however, would change in 2011, thus altering a fundamental relationship between the educator and their practice. In fact, just as teachers leading in the development of teacher evaluation was all one knew for a generation, for a new generation of teachers a sense of powerlessness and disconnection between themselves as professionals and the practice of education became all they knew.
Teacher Evaluation – The Core of the Profession
Education and teaching by its very nature is dynamic and ever-changing. The communities in which education occurs, the diversity of society and economy within these communities, and the socio-environmental conditions such as technology, culture, and current events are constantly impacting our students and their families. Constantly changing conditions notwithstanding, an equal dynamism and agility is required by our educators to be effective at our goal of maintaining high quality education and opportunity for every student. This is what makes teacher evaluation as policy structure fundamental to the practice of education and to the working conditions of educators. Understanding a given environment and understanding what areas of practice could be improved to be most effective in that environment is, at its core, the most fundamental task and challenge every educator engages in every morning they walk through the doors of their school. This is the core of what it means to be an educator; who are my students, and how can I grow in my practice to ensure that they grow as humans and contributing citizens? When teacher evaluation was lead through negotiation, by the teachers of a school district, those teachers were connecting with the very nature of their beings and practice as educators. School district by school district, building by building, teachers could engage in an evaluative process that determined the critical features of good practice for their specific students from their specific communities to grow and thrive within and beyond their communities; and as conditions and environments evolved, constantly engage in review and reflection of the evaluative process.
It was understood for over a generation that public teachers in communities, not legislators in Lansing were best positioned to craft and implement evaluation policies; however, as the 1990’s gave way to the 2000’s, there was growing concern over the public schools’ ability to respond, or failure to respond, to growing societal problems. It should be said that at the same time there was a corresponding disinvestment in schools and community services with a political agenda that had been underway for decades. Culminating in 2011, it had three purposes:
- Undermine unionism as a feature of the American economy, which was a goal since the inception of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
- Undermine public employee unions and specifically the teacher’s unions, as they were regarded as the most formidable political force with reach and influence in every community in the state.
- Create once again a clear labor-management divide in public education where a generation of teacher-administration collaboration was a hard won norm, and which would make public education less desirable and privatization increasingly possible.
Teacher Evaluation – The Means of Attack
In policy echoes we see to this day, on policy matters we thought long settled, within their first year after the 2010 election, Michigan’s Republican led congress and governor passed laws changing aspects of PERA which had stood for almost 50 years. Now, fundamental aspects of the profession were illegal for teachers and public school employees to negotiate. Health insurance caps were imposed; seniority, lay-off, privatization, and crucially performance evaluation were now prohibited from negotiation. They would now be dictates. The security of the teaching profession was attacked, and the heart of the educator was attacked. The teacher no longer had a say in what made for good teaching.
It must be understood here that health care and education are the two largest portions of our state budget, comprising nearly 2/3 of our state’s 77 billion dollars in revenue; so, the desire to capture public tax dollars for private companies could not be clearer. What was needed to achieve that goal was an undermining of teacher confidence and job satisfaction and an erosion of public confidence in the current public education system. This objective was fed by a false narrative that teachers only care about their paycheck, not their students, and schools in general are inefficient money-pits that could be better run by private companies.
After the 2011 changes to PERA, the intended outcome of driving public dollars into private hands was quickly realized. Private companies swooped in to capitalize on opportunities to obtain vast amounts of public dollars without public oversight or scrutiny. First up, school bus drivers and cafeteria staff. These once public employees, who would not only serve their community but also have quality healthcare while employed and a good pension in retirement, would be the first to be privatized. This meant that instead of being direct employees of the school district (public employees), they were employees of subcontractors; thus, effectively increasing healthcare costs and cutting pension eligibility because private employees are not eligible for public school pensions. Notice how bus driver and food service shortages increased while subsequently decreasing in quality? Teachers were next; they too saw increased healthcare costs and the removal of security in their work. Though school administrators, nor the Michigan Department of Education sought these changes (including the changes in teacher evaluation), newly elected legislators in 2010 sought these changes with zeal.
The new laws made it illegal to negotiate many working conditions including teacher evaluation, which meant that teachers were now subject to legislative mandates and were no longer partners with their administrative counterparts in the project of educating students and serving their communities. Administrators had no choice but to enforce these new laws and mandates, and in the process many teachers who lost their voice left the profession. Now we have a new generation of public-school educators who never knew they had a voice in leading the practice, and the consequences have been dire.
We have experienced a significant, and manufactured, teacher shortage. Research suggests that teachers are one of the most engaged employee groups at the start of their career, and within a year or two become one of the least engaged – why? I would argue it is the impacts of the 2011 legislation, where now teachers are most likely to say that their voice doesn’t count. Why would one continue in a profession where they thought they would be able to contribute, serve, and problem-solve, only to find out that there are problems they aren’t allowed to engage in solving? Where they aren’t allowed to lead in the very vocation where they have earned degrees, and where they are consequently pointed to as the problem? Sadly, around one in five of these new educators leave the profession within five years.
Teacher Evaluation – The Restoration of the Profession
The new legislation that restores teachers’ ability to negotiate aspects of teacher evaluation may seem inconsequential, or perhaps only important to a small subset of education policy advocates, but I believe this legislation is transformational in ways many do not yet appreciate. As laid out above in the history of labor rights and the context of the 2011 legislation, the interests and intentions of corporate power vis-à-vis the majority of our nation, have been consistent since 1935. Governing by the consent of the governed and work by the consent of the workers are both hard fought characteristics of American culture; but as many might feel, power and profits may be more easily harnessed with less consent. Certainly, as it pertains to the realm of profession and industry, corporate power has been consistent in working to limit the consent of the worker and in historical context more recently, the largest educated professional class, the teacher.
What this current change in legislation means for the future of the professional educator in Michigan is that teachers will once again regain their voice in leading the improvement of education. They will be able to say, with institutional and legal force, what measures are meaningful as pertains to how their efficacy is determined. As they say, “what get’s measured, get’s improved.” This is where the MAIEA program’s attention to demonstrating educator effectiveness becomes impactful.
As noted on the MAEIA website teachers can learn to tell the story of their teaching, student growth, and discipline. MAEIA tools and resources support teachers and administrators in:
1) planning
2) measuring student growth with MAEIA assessments
3) presenting student data and portfolio materials as evidence of teacher effectiveness.
Additionally, MAEIA has created EduPaths courses that help arts educators, administrators, organizations, schools and districts effectively assess students in the arts, evaluate their arts program, and demonstrate professional practice.
The fourth course, in a four part program, is designed for arts educator who want to learn more specifics about how to use MAEIA assessments to demonstrate educator effectiveness, including how to:
- Understand the legislative requirements of educator effectiveness and how MAEIA assessments can meet the needs of arts educators.
- Understand the three methods for Demonstrating Educator Effectiveness (DEE) and clarify ways to show student growth.
- Identify ways to document instruction and understand the rationale behind it.
- Understand how to demonstrate educator effectiveness and have a voice and choice in the educator evaluation process using MAEIA assessments.
It is important to recognize and understand that teachers are not workers in a standardized manufacturing process of things. They are principal investigators in a dynamic educating process of people. As such, it is even more important to understand that meaningful measurement is not determined by an engineer’s design or a shareholder’s financial stake, but rather meaningful measurement can only be determined by the professional closest to the phenomena to be impacted. That is to say, the teacher within their classroom, their school district, and their educational community.
A teacher is driven to improve, and help improve others, and when that teacher is once again allowed to negotiate evaluation and help design the improvement process for themselves, they will once again be connected to the heart and spirit that moved them to become educators in the first place. They will once again feel the pride of professional destiny, the belief that through work, reflection, and collaboration, our futures are within our own hands and without limit; the very things we hope to impart to our youth. The thing is you can’t give what you don’t have – and now we finally have it . . . again.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more detail on the new changes in Michigan’s educator evaluation laws check out Ed Roeber’s recent post, Changes to Michigan’s Educator Evaluation Laws and the Role of MAEIA Assessments.
Blog Author
Chad Williams is a MAEIA partner and UniServ Consultant with the Michigan Education Association, where he focuses on educator professional learning. Prior to his work with the MEA, Chad was a high school administrator and English teacher in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Citations
Michigan Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register Here.