Teachers make a school district what it is. The better the teachers, the better the education offered to children. For many years, Wisconsin has ranked among the one or two top states nationwide in student achievement when measured by standardized tests - reading or math; scores on the ACT/SAT; or the number of students achieving national merit scholar recognition. No matter the measure, the evidence is clear. The academic achievement by children in Wisconsin's public schools is excellent. Outstanding teachers make it so.
The teacher preparation and licensing which enables such phenomenal success began in the early 1970's when the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) began requiring that all teachers hold at least a bachelor's degree. Then, beginning in 1983, DPI required all teachers to continue their professional growth by earning six credits, or the equivalent, to renew a five-year teaching license. To assure that all teachers remain current, DPI, in the same year, also did away with life licenses. The result has been that Wisconsin's public school children receive instruction from the best and the brightest teachers; those who have made a long term commitment to their profession. The average public school teacher in Wisconsin has earned a master's degree and has 16 years of teaching experience.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The cliche fits. DPI's proposed changes to the teacher licensing regulations, which are also being promoted by the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), will dramatically and negatively impact the wages, hours and working conditions of rank and file teachers. Unfortunately, amending the regulations does not require action by the full legislature. They don't even require signature of the Governor, and it appears that without a major uprising, they will become law. With DPI proposing the modifications they will become law unless a majority of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Administrative Rules acts to stop them. The Education Committee of either house of the legislature does, however, have the authority to block their implementation.
The California Teachers Association, unlike WEAC, vigorously opposed peer review. Recently the CTA reported that "the hardest fought battle of the last legislative session was peer review, in which teachers evaluate struggling colleagues. The CTA fears that teachers judging colleagues puts members in an untenable position."
DPI characterizes the three major changes to the proposed rules as: 1) teacher preparation would move from a course and credit orientation to a "performance and competency orientation." Under the proposed system, to be certified for licensure, teacher candidates would need to demonstrate or exhibit the knowledge, skills, and dispositions identified in the 10 Wisconsin Teacher Standards; 2) there would be three career stages for licensing; and 3) license levels would be based on students' developmental levels i.e. early childhood, middle childhood, early adolescence, and adolescence.
While proponents of the major shift in policy tout "unprecedented opportunities and choices for teachers to direct their own professional development", critics charge that the changes are being put forth at a time when Wisconsin's Legislature and Governor have failed in their financial support of the teaching profession and public education. The revenue controls placed on school districts and the wage controls on teachers (Qualified Economic Offer [QEO]) place not only the education of children but teachers and school boards behind the eight ball.
During the November 17, 1999, Legislative hearing on the proposed changes in teacher licensure, DEMOCRATIC SENATOR ROBERT JAUCH stated, "Isn't it contradictory that on the one hand we are expecting more of our teachers with these new rules, but we continue to hold down their pay?" Senator Jauch asked, "How can we continue to expect more for less?" According to SENATOR JAUCH, the legislature should raise teacher compensation along with standards. "I don't have a problem with society creating higher standards for society's most worthy profession, and that is teaching. My questions have to do with a State that demands so much from its teachers, but is willing to give so little."
To add insult to injury, the proposed DPI changes in teacher licensure, which are supported by WEAC, coincide with the widening of the pay gap between teachers and other college graduates. According to Education Week's 2000 "Quality Counts" report: 1) teachers with bachelor's degrees are paid $34,839, while non-teachers with bachelor's degrees, on average, are paid $43,141; 2) teachers with masters degrees, on average, are paid $48,596 compared to non-teachers with masters degrees, are paid $65,881. Education Week's report also ranked Wisconsin among the top states on student achievement.
|
|
Under revenue controls, school boards cannot raise sufficient funds, at the local level, to build new schools, maintain existing schools, purchase up-to-date textbooks and teaching materials, and maintain teacher salaries at a level to stem the rising tide of the number of teachers leaving for other professions or early retirement. The negative impact of these laws is also causing college students to look at professions other than education. Because of the resulting shortage of teachers, DPI has begun licensing people without the crucial course work such as teaching methods and educational psychology. Via emergency license, DPI enables such people to both teach and substitute teach. In 1998, DPI reported that 1,920 emergency licenses were issued in Wisconsin. In a January 10, 2000, New York Times article, U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard Riley referred to the growing shortage of teachers by stating, "Its gotten so bad (nationally) that some schools have been forced to put any warm body in front of the classroom." The proposed licensure system will move Wisconsin in the direction already experienced by many other states, and the shortage of teachers will grow worse as thousands more teachers reach retirement age in the next few years.
Under the complex and time consuming proposed rules, there would be three teaching licenses - the Initial Educator License, the Professional Educator License, and the Master Educator License.
The proposed Initial Educator License would be a new license; a five (5) year non-renewable license that would be issued to newly certified teachers. Implementation of the rule change would commence with the college class beginning its teacher preparation in the fall of 2000. Each beginning teacher would be required to write a professional development plan (with the assistance of a mentor teacher) based on one or more of the State's 10 standards. Between the third and fifth year of teaching, the Initial Educator would be required to submit a portfolio of evidence to a three member professional development panel for review. The three person team would be comprised of a teacher of the same subject or at the same level who is not a mentor, an administrator, and college or university representative. The licensing decision of the panel would be communicated to DPI for action. This means that the teacher's peers (peer review) would be making judgements reserved by law to supervisors. Such clearly raises question as to whether those who engage in peer review would continue to be eligible to be members of a bargaining unit and enjoy the benefits and rights of union representation.
The proposed Professional Educator License would be a five (5) year renewable license. All Wisconsin teachers who currently hold renewable licenses would be considered to be at this level. This license could be renewed by the teacher writing a professional development plan that identifies his/her goals based on one or more Wisconsin's 10 Teacher Standards. Evidence documenting the successful completion of the plan could include college or university credits, workshops, seminars, conferences, action research, curriculum development, work experiences, district committee work, professional organization or association work, presentations at conferences, publications, teaching courses, or work on special projects. A local professional development panel (three classroom teachers selected by peers) would verify completion of the plan and communicate to DPI as to whether the teacher's Professional Educator License should be renewed.
The proposed Master Educator License would be a voluntary, renewable, ten-year license for experienced teachers (a minimum of seven (7) years' experience would be required for one to be considered) who want to demonstrate the attainment of extraordinary professional competence. This license could be obtained via a portfolio of evidence or through certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. THE ACHIEVEMENT OF A MASTER'S DEGREE OR PH.d. IN EDUCATION, IRONICALLY, DOES NOT QUALIFY ONE FOR THE MASTER EDUCATOR'S LICENSE. A team of three assessors from outside the teacher's district would review the portfolio. Part of the assessment process would be the teachers' "demonstration of exemplary classroom performance through video or on-site observation by the team."
In MTI's January 11, 1999, edition of Solidarity!, a special advisory was issued notifying teachers to TURN OFF THE CAMERA! With the increasing availability of technology in schools, the use of video equipment by teachers looking for prompt feedback regarding their instructional practices and methods is an alluring option. Unfortunately, such practices place the teacher's rights in jeopardy. MTI ADVISES THAT: the School District is of the belief that when video tape/equipment is District property, or even if the taping of the teacher's instructional practices and methods occur on a teacher's paid time, that the District has the right to access and review the content of such materials and, in fact, owns the tape.
So read the November 18, 1999 headlines of Madison's Capital Times, the day after Senate hearings on the proposed rule changes. In her remarks to the Senate Committee, MTI President Paula Ferrara-Parrish called the proposed licensing system "complicated, unfounded, unnecessary and untested in fact or research, as well as being excessively costly ($3.4 million/year statewide) to districts, when revenues are very tight."
Both at its October 1998 meeting and its October 1999 meeting, MTI's policy making body took a firm and unanimous position in opposition to three tier licensing and peer review. MTI's Legislative Committee Chair Barbara Keresty stated, "The current licensing system already contains one of the highest fees in the country. The proposed licensing system would be far more costly and will promote divisiveness, rather than collegiality and sharing of instructional materials and techniques."
Education is most productive for children when teachers work together, sharing ideas, theories, skills and materials. When a lesson plan isn't as successful as a teacher wished, s/he must be able to seek the advice and constructive criticism of peers. PEER REVIEW, as proposed in the DPI proposed administrative rule, would change the landscape. Clearly, peer review - one being able to negatively impact whether a teacher receives a new license - would have a CHILLING EFFECT on the referenced and necessary collegiality. Furthermore, under a system in which one's continued employment would be decided through peer review, teachers would be pitted against teachers. MTI's Faculty Representative Council stated that any evaluation by teachers of teachers is wrong.
Historically, when teachers have been identified as being in need of assistance, their Union sisters and brothers have worked with them, under a collegial commitment, to help them overcome their deficiencies. The proposed peer review rules for licensure are a radical departure from the current arrangement. Peer review, as proposed by DPI, gives one's colleagues the authority to cause one to lose employment, to lose their career. The Peer Review Committee could cause one's licensure to not be renewed. NO LICENSE RENEWAL, NO JOB! It's that simple. When one crosses the line and performs Peer Review, he/she is no longer a peer or a colleague. They have become a supervisor.
Proposed Licensure Scheme vs. 111.70 "Supervisor"
Can the proposed DPI regulations with regard to teacher licensure, and particularly the establishment of "peer review teams", be reconciled with the provision in Wisconsin Statute 111.70 which excludes "Supervisors" from teacher bargaining units? The Municipal Employment Relations Act (111.70) specifically excludes confidential, managerial and executive employees, as well as SUPERVISORS, from the term "Municipal Employee". Supervisors are defined by statute as "any individual who has the authority to hire, fire, promote, evaluate or effectively recommend any such action. It is clear from the DPI proposed rule, as well as the current statute and the case law resulting from litigation under it, that ANY PERSON WHO EVALUATES ANOTHER (PEER REVIEW) is, by law, a supervisor and must be excluded from the bargaining unit. Such exclusion means no contractual rights or benefits and in some school districts, no right to teach.
There is an inherent contradiction in serving both as someone's colleague, or confidential mentor, and that individual's evaluator, i.e. performing peer review.
THE DESCRIBED DICHOTOMY OF PEER REVIEW UNDERMINES THE VERY SOLIDARITY NECESSARY FOR A UNION'S COLLECTIVE STRENGTH AND UNITY; THAT WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR A UNION TO SUCCESSFULLY BARGAIN A CONTRACT FOR ITS MEMBERS AND BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THAT CONTRACT.
MTI's Faculty Representative Council has taken the principled position. You can do the same. For your own security, and that of your colleagues, work to build Union Solidarity. Call, or e-mail those listed below at DPI and WEAC and Say NO TO PEER REVIEW and three tier licensure!
TELL THEM IT AIN'T BROKE; TO LEAVE IT ALONE! THE CHILDREN ARE COUNTING ON YOU.
|
|
|
|
|
|