This week, Michelle Rhee resigned from her post as chancellor of the Washington D.C. public school system. She entered the job as children enter a playground: loudly and without caution. In some ways, she was exactly what they D. C. school system (and many other public school systems in the U.S.) needed. But her approach to school reform efforts ensured that should would not remain in her position over the long haul.
Perhaps the biggest problem plaguing many large, urban school districts is a shortage of highly motivated and qualified teachers. Ms. Rhee recognized that the key to improving schools in D. C. was removing bad teachers and hiring better ones. But removing teachers, particularly those who have several years of seniority and tenure, is a difficult process that produces powerful enemies. Teachers unions, which have worked very hard to ensure that teachers are not fired capriciously, are often powerful political players, and they do not like it when teachers with seniority are fired. Teachers’ unions can influence elections, so one angers them at their own political peril.
Ms. Rhee also closed down several low-performing schools. Americans are funny about our schools. Although we tend to believe that the public school system in general is underperforming, we also tend to be quite satisfied the performance of teachers and schools in our own neighborhoods. When the teachers in our neighborhood school are fired and the school is shut down, people in the neighborhood get angry. Some of this anger is due to our satisfaction with the school that was closed down, and part is due to the pragmatic issue of having to now send our children to a school in a neighborhood further away.
Although I do not support all of Ms. Rhee’s methods toward reform (her insistence on evaluating teachers by using student test scores, for instance), her tenure as Chancellor of schools in Washington D. C. provides many important lessons that are worthy of our attention.
First, we cannot continue to treat low-performing schools with a light hand. As a district, Washington D. C. schools have had some of the lowest achieving students in the country for decades. Despite a history of extremely high drop-out rates and low test scores for students, teachers were routinely evaluated as performing adequately. Ms. Rhee recognized the incongruity of this situation and had the nerve to touch the third rail of education: Some experienced teachers should not remain in the classroom.
Second, we need a better system for evaluating the effectiveness of teachers. This is much more difficult than it sounds, because teachers do not produce tangible outcomes that can be attributed directly to them. (Student test scores are influenced by many factors, not just teacher effectiveness.) The system of teacher evaluation the Ms. Rhee introduced in D. C. includes several classroom observations by impartial master teachers who do not work at the schools where they conduct the observations. This is a good step.
Finally, we need to develop the will, both political and societal, to recognize when teachers or schools are failing and to take the difficult steps required to improve them. Sometimes, this means teachers will lose their jobs. Sometimes, this means schools will be closed. We cannot bemoan the inadequacy of public education if we are not willing to make the difficult changes required to improve it. Unfortunately, there are not simple or pain-free solutions, as the research on school choice and its limited efficacy demonstrates.
Michelle Rhee’s brand of reform has a limited shelf life in any single community. It is simply too disruptive, and makes too many enemies, to last. But that does not mean that he message is wrong. In many school districts, dramatic changes are needed, and they will hurt. Meaningful reform usually does.
No comments:
Post a Comment