12/12/2010 4:30:00 AMEditorial: A strong start to Cleveland teacher evaluation talks

Published: Sunday, December 12, 2010, 4:30 AM

 By The Plain Dealer Editorial Board
 
'Tis the season of good will, even in the Cleveland public schools. And contrary to expectations, the Cleveland Teachers Union and school administrators are peacefully meeting on one of the most contentious topics in education -- evaluating teachers.

Even union President David Quolke, who had complained the meetings were taking too long to arrange, says he's "pleasantly surprised" that the talks have begun in a spirit that's both amicable and substantive.

Both sides should keep it up and follow Quolke's admonition to keep teachers, principals and the public in the loop. Teachers, meanwhile, need to understand that evaluations of their work must be as accessible to the public as are their work records. After all, they are public servants responsible for the city's most precious asset -- its children.

Under the recent three-year contract between the union and the district, the Cleveland school system can move from an outmoded approach that barely measured teacher performance to one that essentially grades teachers and asks the poorest scorers either to improve or to find other jobs. With some issues still to be resolved, there could be a steep learning curve for a teacher evaluation system that might be tried out in at least 10 schools this school year, with other schools phased in as time goes on.

The old system may have made the staff feel comfortable -- few teachers were fired -- but it hurt students. Inadequate teachers stayed on the payroll while their students fell behind. Anxious parents in Cleveland (and other districts) had to resort to gossip to find the best teachers for their child.

Of course, in many districts, bad teachers tend to become an open secret. Yet Cleveland school principals often found poor-performing teachers with seniority so difficult to dismiss that they would pass them along to other schools in the so-called "dance of the lemons." No one got lemonade, least of all the children.

An open process of evaluations can give students a full cup and taxpayers their money's worth. Encouragingly, the Cleveland Teachers Union already has taken a stab at squeezing the lemons with a peer-assistance-and-review panel that pairs strong teachers with weak ones. Their mission: to help their colleagues improve or advise them to leave the field.

But a stronger, better-defined system would give the district the leverage it needs to help good teachers get better and to dismiss those who fall short.

Evaluations will have to be rigorous, fair and consistent, using multiple measures, not just test scores. The administration must make sure that all principals know how to use the system and that they apply it fairly.

School districts across the country are trying to create evaluation systems. Cleveland needs to pay attention and figure out what will work best here. Implementation of a strong evaluation system in Cleveland also would be a valid argument for jettisoning the outdated state law on teacher seniority that mandates that all Ohio school districts lay off teachers according to last-hired, first-fired rules, regardless of their performance in the classroom.

Of course, a change as substantial as this one creates fear and trepidation in the ranks. Yet as Quolke noted, "If we don't take ownership of this profession, someone else will." Surely, Cleveland teachers don't want that to happen.