Addressing Teacher Quality Through Induction,Professional Compensation,and Evaluation: The Effects on Labor-Management Relations

Abstract

Conventional wisdom has it that teacher unions are singularly concerned with enhancing the compensation packages of those whom they represent. Issues central to educational quality, from better teacher preparation to more rigorous professional evaluation, play second fiddle to the primary union focus on wages and benefits, according to conventional wisdom. However, the notion that teacher unions are interested only in improving salary levels belies an emerging truth in some school district-union partnerships. In the locales that are the subject of this article, union and management are creating a new text about labor-management relations. Minneapolis’s Achievement of Tenure process, Denver’s Professional Compensation system, and Montgomery County, Maryland’s Professional Growth System reflect very different kinds of labor-management agreements than are the usual subject of discourse and critique. In these places, labor-management agreements form the foundation of programs designed to improve the quality of teaching and levels of student learning.

Keywords

teacher unions collective bargaining interest-based bargaining teacher contracts teacher quality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bacharach, S. B. , Lipsky, D. , & Shedd, J. (1984). Merit pay and its alternatives. Ithaca, NY: Organizational Analysis and Practice.

Bloom, G. , & Goldstein, J. (Eds.). (2000). The peer assistance and review reader. Santa Cruz: University of California at Santa Cruz.

Bridges, E. M. , & Gumport, P. J. (1984). The dismissal of tenured teachers for incompetence. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance.

Catalyst for change: Pay for performance in Denver (final report). (2004). Boston: Community Training and Assistance Center.

Coker, H. , Medley, D. M. , & Soar, R. S. (1980). How valid are expert opinion about effective teaching? Phi Delta Kappan, 62(2), 131-134, 149.

Contract between the Minneapolis Public Schools and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers. (1999-2001). Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Public Schools.

Darling-Hammond, L. , Wise, A. E. , & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 285-328.

Fisher, R. , & Ury, W. (1987). Getting to yes: Negotiating without giving in. New York: Penguin.

Haertle, E. (1986). The valid use of student performance measures for teacher evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 8(1), 45-61.

10.

Iwanicki, E. F. (1996). The role of evaluation in supervision as a process of inquiry. Manuscript submitted for publication.

11.

Johnson, S. M. (2000, June 7). Teaching’s next generation: Who are they? What will keep then in the classroom? Education Week.

12.

Kerchner, C. T. , & Koppich, J. (1993). A union of professionals: Labor relations and educational reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

13.

Kerchner, C. T. , Koppich, J. , & Weeres, J. (1997). United mind workers: Unions and teaching in the knowledge society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Koppich, J. (1998). Spotlighting teacher quality: A review of teacher evaluation (Paper prepared for the AFT K-12 Programs Policy Council). Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.

15.

Koppich, J. (2001). The Professional Growth System in Montgomery County Public Schools: A report on first-year implementation results (Report prepared for the Montgomery County Public Schools). Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.

16.

Koppich, J. (2002). Toward professional community: The professional growth system in Montgomery County (Report prepared for the Montgomery County Public Schools). Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.

17.

Koppich, J. , Kerchner, C. T. , & Asher, C. (2001). Developing careers, building a profession: The Rochester career in teaching plan. New York,: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

18.

Mannatt, R. P. , & Daniels, B. (1990). Relationship between principals’ ratings of teacher performance and student achievement. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4, 189-201.

19.

McGreal, T. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.

20.

Medley, D. M. , & Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 242-247.

21.

Montgomery County Public Schools . (2001). The professional growth system in Montgomery County: Building professional community in schools. Rockville, MD: Author.

22.

Murnane, R. J. , & Cohen, D. K. (1986). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why some merit pay plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 1-17.

23.

Odden, A. , & Kelley, C. (1997). Paying teachers for what they know and can do: New and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

24.

Teaching at risk: A call to action. (2004). New York: The Teaching Commission.

25.

Walton, E. E. , & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

26.

Wise, A. , Darling-Hammond, L. , McLaughlin, M. W. , & Bernstein, H. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A study of effective practices. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.